Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arknascar44 (talk | contribs) at 01:24, 27 August 2008 (→User:Mamalujo and Hitler's Pope: no reason to block, just a need for a nudge in the right direction :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Deletion of edit history required

    Unresolved

    Date warring on 2008 South Ossetia war

    Skyring (talk · contribs) has been editing this controversial article, almost entirely to change date format. [1]; [2]; [3]; and [4]. There may be others; and he seems to be arguing for the same change on other articles.

    The claim that WP:DATE requires this is spurious; I cannot find anything describable as consensus on talk. (There was a discussion on talk to make this uniformly Month day, year; but I can't see any to make it day month year.)

    More importantly, this article has enough problems. It is mostly Month day, year, and should probably wind up that way; but we don't need dancing Date Warriors adding to the confusion of the conflicting Georgian and Russian claims. Could someone have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "most inappropriately for an American citizen"? What the hell does that mean? John Reaves 00:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess Septentrionalis is not referring to the editor but to the subject of the article. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette says "Lafayette was the first to be granted Honorary Citizenship to the United States." Then a US date format may be more preferred than for Italian popes (see WP:MOSNUM#Strong national ties to a topic). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment: I and a group of other editors have been working assiduously on that particular article. We decided to use international date format because, although he is an honorary US citizen, he lived the majority of his life in France and is well known for his actions there, as well (in addition to being a French citizen). Further, Skyring did edit the dates, but was in no way uncivil towards me or the article's other collaborators. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a striking lack of consensus building on all sides here; see this previous discussion. I don't think administrative action is called for here. Chick Bowen 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that admin action is probably inappropriate. I'm very disappointed to see that anyone is getting into arguments about date formatting so soon after date-autoformatting has been deprecated at MOSNUM. I'll be yet more disappointed if Pete is going to derail what is a major change in WP's formatting practices by proving the critics right: that dispensing with the blue dates will spark edit wars. My advice to him, which I've communicated more than once, is to cool it, at least at the moment, never to edit-war over date formats, and to take issues to the experts at WT:MOSNUM—that's what they're there for. Please let go of any nationalistic fervour attached to date format: the US military uses international format; many non-US newspapers use the so-called US format; it's a mixed bag. I thank Anderson for bringing my attention to this. Tony (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be a good idea to let people know outoformatting is deprecated, maybe by a watchlist notice? I've become so used to linking dates that I just do it by default. --NE2 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Pmanderson. It seems the only reason Pete has come to 2008 South Ossetia war is to engage in enforcing a dating POV as his edits/contribs on this article seem to be only dating related.--«Javier»|Talk 07:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I get a lot of pleasure from tidying up Wikipedia. Correcting spelling, tweeking grammar and so on. And yes, slotting dates into their correct format, all as per the Manual of Style. It used to be, years ago, that I could go to almost any random article on Wikipedia and find some factual error that I could fix, but nowadays, it's getting pretty hard to find easy fixes. But there are always spelling errors and dates to correct. It's not my personal POV that Georgia and Russia use day-month-year dating format. It's solid fact. Perhaps PMAnderson could explain exactly why he feels that this precise article requires American Dating format throughout and that he is prepared to edit-war against consensus and the MoS to see it so? He doesn't have support on the talk page, other editors revert his edits[5] and now he's causing disruption here. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel it needs American dating throughout - if I wanted that, it would be closer to uniformity than it is; eventually, when the article is stable, uniformity would be nice. I feel (and have said repeatedly on its talk page) that it needs to have the dating left alone; experience shows that giving single reverts to Date Warriors avoids rewarding disruptive behaviour. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you leave the dating alone then? Clearly, it's going to have International Dating rather than American Dating, and repeatedly inserting an inappropriate dating format isn't helping any. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for a good source, I find at Calendar date that both Georgia and Russia are shown as using [[Calendar_date#dd.2Fmm.2Fyyyy_or_dd.mm.yyyy_.28day.2C_month.2C_year.29}|day month year]] order. The Common Data Locale Reference project shows Russia as using day month year order for the Gregorian calendar. Look at line 2648 here. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with NE2, only more strongly. When did bluelinked dates become deprecated? I've done a few edits to put them into various articles, thinking I was being helpful. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The change occurred a few hours ago. There's been a lot of discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers). --Pete (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of threats

    I promised to report Pmanderson if he kept edit-warring against consensus. That's a bannable offence. I raised this point on the article's talk page here five days ago and as can be seen there is general agreement that International Dating format (day-month-year) is appropriate for an article relating to two countries, both of which use day-month-year format. The Manual of Style is clear on this:
    • Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation; articles related to Canada may use either format consistently.
    • Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format.
    Neither Georgia nor Russia are English-speaking nations, so the second rule applies, but in any case, the links could hardly be stronger. This is not an article about countries where American Dating is used. Pmanderson's claims of consensus for American Dating on the talk page are spurious, as a glance at the discussion shows (and thank you, Chick Bowen, for digging it up). I echo Tony's concerns about edit-warring - just how many times does Pmanderson get to undo my careful work? With the deprecation of autoformatting dates, we're going to have to stamp pretty firmly on people who insist on crusading inappropriately. I also note that Pmanderson has been removing SI units of measurement from articles, again, contrary to consensus and the Manual of Style. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This argument misstates the situation in several wsys.
    • Most seriously, it misstates our guidance; "strong assciation" is to English-speaking countries, since this guidance is a corollary of WP:ENGVAR; so the strength of association to Georgia or Russia is irrelevant. (Their WPs presumably have practices on the matter, but that's not to point here.)
    • Most culpably, it misstates my arguments here. I don't claim there is a consensus on which dating format to use; I claim there isn't one, largely because the other editors are doing more important things - even the endemic Georgian-Russian revert wars are more important than Skyring's Date War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion on this precise question, initiated by me, looks like clear consensus. Half a dozen editors contributed - PMAnderson the lone dissenting voice. As pointed out, neither Georgia nor Russia are English-speaking, therefore the second guideline applies:
    • Articles related to other countries that commonly use one of the two acceptable formats above should use that format. (My emphasis)
    I can't see any other way to interpret that except that 2008 South Ossetia war should use International Dating format. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • False again. Does
      There are too many American date formats in the article, I would find it pointless to change them to the British format. Besides, Section 5.2 on the Humanitarian impact on Georgians says "makeshift centres" (British spelling) in the 7th line, and then 3 lines later it mentions "media center" (American Spelling). Would you want to enforce uniformity here too? User:Mateat 3:24, August 22 2008 (UTC)
    sound like assent to the international dating system to Skyring? If so, we have a much more serious problem. There is also a renewed discussion, here, in which Slyring's contentions are even further from winning consensus.
    • MOSNUM, that perpetually revert-warred opinion of a handful, is a guideline; it is even further than most guidelines from being the consensus of Wikipedia. This obscure and undesireable sentence should be ignored, as harmful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The conversion you removed was in the very first line of the article! --Pete (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And the other (more precise) statement of the same value was in the infobox, right across from it; that's why the conversion was a redundant lump of parentheses - and so bad prose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I invite the administrators whose intervention PMAnderson requests to look at the discussion and the Manual of Style for themselves. This needs settling. If PMAnderson has a problem with the long-established wording of the MoS, he should raise it on the talk page there. In the meantime, I'll abide by the existing policy. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have done so; see this section . Skyring's aggressive conduct has been deprecated, as it has been here, and on the talk page of the article on the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find some irony in PMAnderson raising comment on another editor's behaviour when their own in this area is so consistent - seems there is a bit of an agenda there regarding variants of English, date standards and the like based on the user's own preferences and personal opinions. I happen to think Pete/Skyring is correct on this one - most of the world uses international dates, although I'm quite in favour of topics of particular US interest, or those in countries which explicitly use US dates such as East Asia, the Philippines and Canada (amongst others), using US date format as it's clearer to its most likely readers. Orderinchaos 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, welcome; for those who do not know this reknowned squabbler on the spelling of tennis players, he is one of those who complained bitterly when a majority chose to spell Novak Djokovic as English-speakers do in fact spell the Djoker. There is indeed a pattern here: a pattern of those who would like to use Wikipedia as a language reform institute, at any price of disruption and incomprensibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Reknowned squabbler." Oh well, at least I'm famous for something. :) Actually, my main aim is not "language reform" but correctness, and an understanding of the fact that we have either the advantage or disadvantage (nobody quite agrees on that one) of having a language which accommodates a very, very large chunk of the world, but which has diversified accordingly. With the date situation it's even more clear - the vast bulk of the world uses one date format or system, a single country and a couple of other scattered regions use another. The problem is that the single country has delusions of ruling the world, and hence telling everyone else how to do things. Orderinchaos 06:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions?

    Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has taken it upon himself to mass-delete several non-free images with seemingly appropriate rationales, thus short-circuiting discussions he is involved in here and here. This seems to clearly contravene Wikipedia:Administrators: Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools. Whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. An image I uploaded, Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg was one he nuked, which is my potential COI; I would therefore not use admin tools in connection with the matter. I invite uninvolved editors to review his actions with a view to helping him to be a better admin in future. Thanks in advance for any time you can give to this. --John (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just because you don't agree with a deletion doesn't make it wrong and I see that no deletion review has actually established the action was incorrect. ANI is not the place to discuss cases like this. Raise a conduct RFC if you can find evidence of a pattern of abusive actions rather then this being a simple case of sour grapes. Spartaz Humbug! 06:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may be missing the point. Try reading what I wrote again, especially the bit in italics. Again, whatever the merits or otherwise of FPR's understanding of non-free content guidelines, he should not in my opinion be speedying images like this. I am perfectly well aware of the function of this page and I know what a user RfC is. As I said, I am seeking uninvolved input, and if you have anything salient to say, I'd love to read it. --John (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)According to WP:CSD#7, WP:NFCC#2 violations are 48h-notification speedies. WP:NFC#Unacceptable use provides authoritative guidance about the interpretation of that rule. All the images I speedied yesterday fell precisely under its scope. I pointed this policy out to a number of people in a number of places recently, including some IfD cases similar to the ones I closed. The fact that I told people about the policy doesn't make me "involved" in the sense of barring me from applying it. Just as an admin who explains CSD A7 to a user isn't barred from applying CSD A7 on a similar article the next day. – In the present case, there were IfD discussions about these speedy candidates, with a few "keep" votes in several cases. All the "keep" opinions boiled down to a logical confusion between necessary and sufficient criteria. We have a round dozen of NFCCs; the must all be met; but all keep votes were effectively saying that one was met so the others can be ignored. Such votes being obviously outside policy, they must be discarded just like you would ignore a "hangon – but they have a page on Myspace!" tag as an objection to a A7-band speedy. It's just irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ecx2) First a user mass noms images on a contentious point. Fut. Perfect participates in some of these discussions, agreeing with the nom. Then he deletes others, where there is debate still in progress, and there's still 3 days of the IfD to run. It's a blatant abuse of admin tools. Ty 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and he is being pretty economical with the truth here as well; he didn't just "[tell] people about the policy", he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and even edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before abusing his admin tools to delete the images in question. If this is allowable, why would we even have an IFD process? --John (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit-warring? Get your facts straight. I removed the original image, perfectly within process; then a user – instead of contacting me – immediately uploaded a new version of the same image under a new filename and reinserted it. Of course I deleted that again (duly removing the redlink from the article), and told him to take it to DRV. That's the normal thing to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an ongoing problem with Fut Per. He once threatened to block anyone who dared readd an image he removed from an article, and closed an IfD as delete where every one of the three recommendations was a policy-based "keep." He's using his admin tools as a weapon to enforce his disputed view of image policy, which is completely unacceptable, and needs to stop immediately. S.D.D.J.Jameson 07:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, what's apparent from this discussion is that John and Ty think that FP's deletions were invalid and FP disagrees. The place to debate that is obviously deletion review. Also John and Ty claim that FP misused his tools in a content dispute, which FP denies. If they want this charge to be considered, John or Ty will have to document the content dispute with diffs. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, Steven, just a couple of sections above. Here are sample diffs again, bolded this time since you missed them: he commented at the deletion discussion, and the policy discussion, and also edit-warred to enforce his narrow view of non-free use, before he mass-deleted the images in question. He has since lied, or at best been highly disingenuous in this very discussion, claiming only to have "told people about the policy", when in fact he was highly involved in the matter. If I ever abused my tools in this way, I hope that someone would pick me up for it. I also hope I would be more responsive than FPS has been. Cut to the chase; I don't want to be a part of a project which condones an admin treating other good-faith users and long-standing policy with contempt like this. This isn't about image policy any more, it's about an admin who says on his user page he wants to be a rouge admin and has invited others here to "quarter" him. These are not indicative of the sort of clue we expect an admin to possess. --John (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been the victim of this editor deleting an image when the consensus was clearly that the image should be kept. I believe I gave an adequate summary of why the image counted as fair use in the rationale given when I uploaded the image - used in the Chillenden Windmill article. I'd like to know how to go about restoring the image to the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that nothing's changed in the world of policy wikilawyering whilst I've been gone. Claiming that a policy is "disputed" because there's a conversation going on about it is quite neat - on that basis I could claim that any policy with a talkpage is disputed. The editor two above me is entirely correct - DRV is the place for this, not here. Black Kite 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand, if an admin is unilaterally reinterpreting a policy consenus on their own, then that is a AN or ANI problem. And that's what's claime here. And I tend to agree there's a problem - The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint. Reinterpreting NFCC to include "no press image can be reused as it might infringe on someone's future profits" is a pretty big deal, and contrary to policy guidance (informal and nonspecific as it was) from on high. So, I think there's a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Link please? And by the way, I'm not "reinterpreting" a policy consensus. I'm applying a policy that has always been in place. I can remember at least three DRVs where speedy deletions of mine of just this kind have been upheld, and that's talking of my own deletions alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if there is a problem, it belongs on the talkpage of the policy (NFCC#2 has needed clarifying for ages, IMO), at DRV for the image, or at the very most at an RFC. What is more of a problem is what has been happening for ages - a group of editors blindly ignores NFCC and plasters copyright violations all over Wikipedia, and when an admin steps in and fixes the problem, they are accused of "re-interpreting a policy against consensus" when what is actually happening is that they are correctly interpreting it. Then an argument starts on WT:NFCC and the group of editors cries "but it's a disputed policy!" and have to be quietly told that "A disputed policy" does not mean "A policy that you disagree with". Now this might not fully fit what is happening here, but we really do need to decide whether this is a Free Encyclopedia or not, and then either (a) get NFCC tightened up completely to prevent these sorts of shenganigans or (b) throw the majority of it out of the window. Having policies that are "open to interpretation" (even if those interpreters are being wilfully obtuse) doesn't do anyone any favours. Black Kite 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is those images shouldn't have been deleted until the dispute was settled. There were far more keeps than opposes and this administrator has shown a clear disrespect to the views of others and abused his tools by deleting them. The Bald One White cat 10:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The outcome of the following in normal circumstances would have been quite clear. To keep it. Hpwever this was not the case:

    Copy of IFD discussion

    Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg

    Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mjroots (notify | contribs).

    Keep, image is of low resolution and small in size, there is no free alternative that can be used and it would be impossible to recreate the exact image even if the mill were to collapse again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)

    I believe I have adequately covered why it is OK to use the image in the fair use rationale given when I originally uploaded the image. Mjroots (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah but at the same time it's become common practice to short-circuit AFD discussions by declaring that BLP applies, and that it can only be overturned through deletion review or arbcom, and regardless of how many people are convinced that the deleter is misinterpreting policy and/or smoking crack. Copyright policy is of at least equal gravity (greater, I would argue) but "process" is decidedly streamlined against those enforcing it. Something's gotta give here. — CharlotteWebb 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The argument that the outcome "would have been quite clear: to keep it." is sort of weird. You can't out-vote our copyright policies. If 100 Wikipedia editors vote to keep a copyrighted image for which there is no fair use claim, for example, any admin is justified in coming along and deleting it. Now, there seems to be a good faith dispute about whether this image violates the policies. The place to resolve that dispute is WP:DRV, not here. Nandesuka (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of vote stacking, three administrators clearly expressed that they believed the image was justified for use and we could claim usage of it. The use of the image was disputable and 3 administrators believed it wasn't a clear cut copyvio as the image was irreplaceable. The deleter clearly showed a disrespect to his fellow administrators by not reaching an agreement first. If "Copyright isn't up for a vote" why do we have an IFD process?? Many of the images placed there are copywrighted images so what is the point in other editors joining in a discussion and the keep/delete process?? It is there because some images have disputable fair use claims which need sorting out and coming to a general conclusion on whether they should be kept. The deleter has completely gone against the IFD procedure and deleted something just because he thinks it is a copyvio. If we based on decisions on wikipedia on the basis of one editors view we would be in complete disorder. The Bald One White cat 11:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some weird notions about process here too. It is a perfectly normal thing to shorten an IfD on a speedy basis, it happens every day. And I don't need to "tag" something for speedy and then let somebody else do the deletion either - the whole point about speedies is that they can be handled by a single admin without consultation. That's why we have speedy criteria, and these images matched the speedy criteria exactly. What if the nominator hadn't brought the images to IfD but just {{dfu}}'d them? We'd have the same result: the images would legitimately have hit the deletion queue after 48h and would be gone now. As I said, all objections were of the type: It passes NFCC xyz, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't pass the others. Such objections are not ground for a legitimate debate, they are simply, self-evidently, wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'll be away for most of the rest of the day and much of the next few days, so if anybody wants to draw and quarter me in my absence, feel free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Chillenden image's original source is here. I fully accept that it's a copyright image - that is not the issue. It's been mentioned above about images without fair use rationales. The image I uploaded did have a fair use rationale, and one that I believe was a valid one. It seems to have been targeted because it was from a news agency, the other copyright images used in the article have not been touched. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note Images deletion has been asked to be reviewed Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's his tactic it seems: delete the image anyway, and force it to go to DRV, where he can claim the burden of proof is on those wishing to overturn the deletion. It's out-of-process, as the burden of proof for deletion is on those calling for deletion. Yet the same ones who always defend Fut Per's actions are here doing so now, so I highly doubt anything will change. As for Fut Per's statemento of "willing martyrdom" about being "drawn and quartered", perhaps he should take a step back for awhile. All people are asking for is that he quit misusing his tools to enforce his own narrow view of a disputed policy. If he stops doing that, no one will be starting threads at ANI about him. S.D.D.J.Jameson 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this image is a bad example, as it does actually need to be deleted under WP:NFCC. See howcheng's point in the original discussion. I've said more at the deletion review and at WT:NFC. Carcharoth (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For fun and bedtime reading further examples, I would suggest:disputes FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Action to be taken on Consensus violations

    We have a policy here that we discuss things and agree them before changing them, except in the most egregious cases where a living person is being defamed or where the foundation is at risk of legal action. We have no evidence whatsoever that this is even close to being an example of this. We also have a policy here that admins do not exercise their tools in cases where they have been involved. Without wiki-lawyering about what "involved" means here, which other admins here would have used their tools in a dispute like this? I would not, and I can't believe that anybody would think this was ok. Maybe it is me who is out of step. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. When those entrusted to administer things practice unilateralism, thinking they are beyond some of the rules because they alone know what other rules mean, all process breaks down and we have a free for all. - Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree. Future's actions were perfectly in line with longstanding policy and precedent. Kelly hi! 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kelly, can you point me to the "longstanding policy and precedent" that FPS's actions were perfectly in line with? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'd point toward this discussion at WT:NFC, which explains the history fairly well. Future's actions were in line with the policy as it has long been understood (Jimbo has made deletions under the same interpretation). Whether the policy needs changing is another matter, but Future shouldn't be sanctioned for following policy as it exists. Kelly hi! 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. Has Jimbo personally deleted images he was involved in discussion with, do you know? If he has I would have similar qualms to those I hold in this case. It seems vital to me that an admin doesn't take admin action in areas he/she has been involved in discussing, and policy seems to agree with me. --John (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from. However, when it comes to clear policy violations, I think we have a different interpretation of "involved admin". Just because Future Perfect pointed out policy during the discussion does not disqualify him from taking action in the same case. If an admin were to opine that a particular fact was a violation of WP:BLP in a particular biography, this does not bar her from blocking the BLP-violating editor or protecting the article. The overall community consensus of site policy overrides the individual consensus of involved editors in cases like this. Kelly hi! 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I think I understand where you are coming from too. In cases of WP:BLP or WP:OFFICE I would agree with you. I guess we disagree over the seriousness of this particular issue; I really don't think this rises to the urgency of these examples, and I do think there is legitimate discussion to be had. This was ongoing and so no action should be taken until it is complete and a consensus emerges. --John (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. Thanks, John. Kelly hi! 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Sorry, but the resolution allows us to set our policies about fair use and as such consensus does dictate each on a case-by-case basis. Using a mis-application of CSD to bypass consensus and/or force a DRV (which is much harder to pass and thus favors that of the deleting admin) is gaming the system. MBianz is a respected image specialist and he made an excellent argument for keeping. FPAS was sore because he didn't get his way and we shouldn't be condoning his behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Fut Per does this all too frequently, and it's not appropriate in any way. S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some comments above state that Future Perfect is enforcing policy. He is not. There is nothing in the policy WP:NFCC about press agencies. He is applying the guideline WP:NFC, which does not have the same force and is open to discussion about its application in particular cases. Ty 00:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support As an admin myself, I sometimes think that "policy" is used as a poor defence for individual rational judgement. However, rational judgement in the absence of a clear consensus on a particular issue is simply IAR, and the question then goes to whether it improves the encyclopaedia. I think we're looking at a case of admin burnout, sadly, based on the last couple of months of evidence. Some incivility and failure to discuss is also a problem, as is acting as an involved admin in a dispute - which our basic principles kind of discourage in a big way. I'm not overly willing to criticise Fut Perf too hard though, as I myself had a little episode of the same over a school article a month or so ago. Orderinchaos 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Slight change in my own view towards some sort of action after having seen some further examples of behaviour which suggest this is a much more advanced case than I thought we were looking at. I'm not absolutely sure this user should continue to be an admin at all if we see much more of this. If I was to see evidence of an acknowledgement of community concern and an undertaking to change their behaviour, I would feel a lot more comfortable as I think would many others. Orderinchaos 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Presently uninvolved but mindful that admin actions can be detrimental if consensus and basic decorum are not respected. Bzuk (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support Future Perfect's take on NFCC enforcement is extreme and controversial, and he has no compunctions about applying it unilaterally in the face of a consensus that finds otherwise. (Note: Not an admin.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • !vote ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC) (wait, why are people even supporting a paragraph that ends with a rhetorical question?)[reply]
    Change of topic title made; see: Issues with admin actions for the genesis of this topic. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock

    There are multiple IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger across the project. These edits are removing her name from articles such as feminism, Aesthetics, Gender studies and many more. Ettinger is a feminist psychoanalystist, academic and artist - she is not a hoax (see Google scholar[6] to verify). This IP user has put her bio page up for PROD as well.

    Also with this edit they seem to claim to be a sock puppet of MArina T.[7]

    The IPs are switching fast so it seems extremely likely that this is either someone using open proxies.

    I could do with some help here, since my time is limited. I expect there will be further edits done while I'm offline so could sysop keep a set of eyes on this.

    I'm going to semi-protected the effected articles. And I'm blocking the IPs for 3 days. But I'd appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on things. The IPs are:

    The articles in question are:

    --Cailil talk 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    At least in the case of Lacan, this was a lone edit - I don't see why a week of protection is called for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to suggestions Phil - but this removal is happening across many more pages than I originally thought and this is the 2nd time today that this has occurred on a number of the pages. On top of that this user a) knows what they're doing and b) is uisng open proxies. If anyone have any ideas on how to handle this better I'm all ears--Cailil talk 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Marina T, Marina T is a sock of Nimrod Kamer, a known Israeli troll who was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia.
    Marina T used to promote this non-notable woman ([8] [9]) and link her from unrelated articles. I'm here to clear Marina T (=Nimrod Kamer and his sock puppets) carp.
    Bracha L. Ettinger was created by Marina T [10] (who was banned from Wikipedia). 89.0.6.132 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unfamiliar with the trolling case of Marina T/Nimrod Kamer but at a glance I'd say Ms Ettinger is probably notable. A dissertation included her and her body of academic and art work seems significant and somewhat influential. If there are undue weight references to Ettinger's work in many different articles, then these need to be evaluated/addressed individually and modified or removed. Wholesale wiki-wide reversion of even a troll's work should be considered carefully on its merits. (Although at least some of them are so jargon-filled as to be impenetrable to an outsider to Lacanian theory.) I'm going to try to look over the articles in question and perhaps report back here if I come to any firmer conclusions. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This definitely seems like drive-by and indiscriminate removal of all references to Ettinger. 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs) marks all the removals as "spam" when this is not so obvious to me. Some are removal of references that include Ettinger's publications on academic/university presses. This seems more a content dispute over Ettinger's importance but when an IP-shifting editor quickly does this serially to all mentions of her, I'd have to call it vandalism. I think protecting the articles was a little overreactive for just a couple of reverts on some of them but it's also hard to talk to a shifting IP. Cailil did try[11] without success. The IP above merely cites two Google searches (4,560 and 5,840 hits) as evidence of Ettinger's non-notability but I think the Google Scholar search [12] is somewhat more telling with 23 hits. All in all, I think Cailil is handling it about right considering the IP(s) don't seem to be overly communicative on talk pages. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Pigman. I have no problem unprotecting everything if people feel that semi-protection was an over-reaction. But I could see no other solution - the IPs jump too far and too fast. Any help looking fater this would be much appreciated--Cailil talk 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, some of the removals were on target. Ettinger, for instance, was probably unduly represented in Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. Similarly, in Film theory it amounted to adding a mention of an essay by Ettinger. Fine, but there are so many essays of film theory that we can't go adding every one, and Ettinger would make few people's top 20 lists. Ettinger is notable enough for an article, but it looks like her name was spread around a bit more than is wholly appropriate, and it would not surprise me if it were done to spam. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Phil. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to evaluate which references to her in Wiki-articles are good and which are overstating her influence. It's just not in my areas of knowledge. However, blanket removal of all refs and PRODding her bio article seemed a tad over the top. It's clear to me from her article that she's notable by WP standards; her actual influence, importance and pertinence to these other articles is another matter. I can't judge that. When the IP editor insisted she was non-notable despite her fairly impressive list of art showings and publications on academic presses, it lowers the IP's credibility in my eyes.
    Cailil, I think the semi-protection is fine for the moment. It would certainly help if the IP would come forward with a consistent account, even if only the same IP account, to discuss the matter. In lieu of that, I'm just hoping people with a better grasp of Ettinger's influence (or non-influence) will look more closely at these mentions listed at the top of this thread. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Phil some of the removals seemed in-line with undue. Nevertheless the problem is when somebody using open-proxies begins prod-ing a bio article (that demonstrates notability properly) and launches a crusade to remove all references to that person from wikipedia. Yes the level of Ettinger's representation is problematic but this IP's behaviour is just as bad. If this person were doing this in good faith they wouldn't be using open proxies and they wouldn't be prod-ing perfectly notable articles.
    The fact is that Ettinger is notable - I'm personally not a fan of her's and I do think she was being listed too often. She is most notable in gender studies and psychoanalysis but I agree she may be over-represented on WP. However, one does not address undue weight by giving an edit-summary of "SPAM". And also the IP began removing more than just references to Ettinger - see here & here - that's just blanking. The lines removed in the 1st diff might be unsourced but it is perfectly sourcable. Then there were the removals of Ettinger's name from the lists of artists and lists of feminists - which are just as bizarre as the prod-ing of the bio.
    And just to be clear the semi-protection is only for a week in all cases but that can be reviewed--Cailil talk 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look at this: [13] [14] (1600 hits on Wikipedia) [15] (hundreds of hits on flickr). This is a proof it is a spam and she is non-notable academic (evey prof has publication).

    She is so famous she has only article in the French Wikipedia (create by the same troll Nimrod Kamer). This troll liked to her from major articles like psychoanalysis, women in art, art history, feminism, aesthetics and so on. This article should be deleted.

    I have good faith. I'm not using open proxies, I just changing my IP after each edit for security reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.238 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion is that you get an account, as account users can only have their IP's checked by Checkusers. Plus, it makes it easier to talk to you, if you keep resetting the modem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    She's faculty at the European Graduate School: [16]. They do not tend to add non-notable people. Similarly, she has a book out with Minnesota - one of the best academic presses in her field. Again, a sign of notability. I believe you that she's been spammed across Wikipedia, but it is transparently clear, as a grad student in her field, that she is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, Ettinger is plenty notable - but she may be given too much weight in a few too many articles. However, that's possibly a systemic bias, or (more likley) an undue weight issue, rather than a "spam" problem. Her work is pertinent to aesthetics, feminism, psychoanalysis & gender studies - since that's exactly what it's about. This multiple IP user has claimed that a) Ettinger is a hoax (in the prod of the bio article); b) that Ettinger is non-notable (here); c) claimed that every reference to her is "spam" and d) that she was being added in a "self-promotional" effort and e) that it is all the work of an Israeli sock-puppeteer & "troll". The last point might be partially true, but the others are verifiably incorrect and as such are major red-flags--Cailil talk 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I apologize for accusing you of using Open proxies - I was incorrect. But using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny is a problem - getting an account would indeed be a good idea--Cailil talk 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In my opinion Ettinger is notable, but she's not a household name. She was initially overly placed in certain articles and her importance as a figure in the art world was exaggerated. She appears in several articles about cutting edge contemporary art and philosophy. That said - she does belong in several of the articles and I've restored her to most of the articles and lists from which she had been deleted. She appears to be both a published scholar and an exhibiting artist...and it looks like a concerted effort to delete her from this encyclopedia is under way. Modernist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. I got an account.
    2. Ori Radler is a good and respected wikipedian, mainly active on Hebrew Wikipedia
    3. Please help him cleaning Nimrod Kamer's crap.
    4. She is non-notable
    5. Even if she is notable this article should be deleted because it was written by a known troll (Nimrod Kamer) who was banned from ALL Wikimedia projects.
    6. At least delete ALL his spam links and unlock the articles - you all agree she's been spammed.
    7. @Phil Sandifer: In any field you know her? --NZQRC (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK - As we proceed we will be careful and circumspect about Ettinger's appearances where she does not belong. She's been removed from Women Artists and Postmodern art, certain places she belongs others not. Modernist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a lot to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger. She's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too. Someone should notice them. --NZQRC (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus seems to be that Ettinger is mildly notable as an artist and writer. She can stay on lists of contemporary artists for example. However she can be removed from inclusions that indicate an exaggerated position of importance and expertise. Any removals should be careful and indicate on the Talk Page of the article why the removal is taking place, in case of a dispute - discuss on the talk page....Modernist (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NZQRC, thanks for registering an account. It makes communication much easier. Re Ettinger: I think it's a mistake to dismiss her just because of who added the info to WP. At this point more people are examining the wiki-links/wiki-refs to her for validity and that should help to balance out the "spamming". Looking at the supporting online sources and documentation, I think you're fighting a losing battle to claim she is non-notable. The sources are too varied and substantive to be dismissed out of hand as you seem to be asking us to do. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Open proxy now removing her link at the drawing center citing this thread in edit summary here. I've semi'ed the article (only one on my watch list) until this gets figured out because I'm sick or reverting and the truth is, no other new editors or anyone else have shown an interest lately. We're not hampering progress. I think her exhibit at the Drawing Center was an notable exhibit for the Drawing Center. Thoughts on that? I'm not opposed to its removal if its proved to be n-n but this was getting ridiculous. TravellingCari 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NZQRC - or whoever you and all the other IPs are STOP THE BLANKING you are in complete violation of this noticeboard discussion and any agreements you just keep blanking, frankly you are all out of control! Modernist (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The notability of Bracha L. Ettinger is a topic for Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger, not for the noticeboard. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about this non-notable woman. This is about trolling, spamming, self promoting and abusing Wikipedia. --NZQRC (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly this thread is about inappropriate deletions and inappropriate blanking of articles - not the notability of Ettinger, although that has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The story of Nimrod Kamer and his friends floats every few months in the Hebrew Wikipedia and Israel-related talk pages in other language 'pedias. Poking fun at Kamer's pathetic stabs at self-promotion and stardom is entertaining, but some of the articles about his gang are actually reasonable.
    I thoroughly cleaned up excessive Marina T./Nimrod Kamer/Shmila cruft half a year ago, and since then there was only some action around the Ettinger article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary section break

    Now this is getting to be thoroughly annoying. Looking through this WP specific Google search, I'm finding that IPs are systematically removing all mentions of Ettinger. At a glance, the few links/references I've looked at seem contextually appropriate to their articles. I'm sure some aren't but this strikes me as more of a purge than corrections or adjustments. Of course Ettinger is just the one that we're aware of. It wouldn't surprise me to find that similar removals are going on with other "Nimrod Kamer" additions. With the shifting IPs there's no easy way to track such a varied and concerted effort. As I said, this really is a content question but the method puts it more under the heading of vandalism. Deliberately masking these efforts to evade normal editorial discussion is not being bold but violating WP processes. (As an informal and completely unencyclopedic point of reference, two of my housemates seem to have heard of Ettinger. Neither are in Ettinger's field(s). Proves nothing but still worth noting.) Some of these removals are being done very poorly as well. [17] shows the removal of Ettinger from the Eurydice article but leaves info about Ettinger's exhibit venues and dates, now without any context. Sloppy work that will need to be cleaned up. Hmph! Pigman☿ 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NZQRC's method, besides the bad faith of using multiple IPs and ignoring this thread, breaks WP:EP's core - "remove bias but retain content". All of us here can see that there may be an undue weight problem but NZQRC's behaviour is too disruptive to the project and is moving from a minor irritation to a blitz attack on articles. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm bordering on blocking NZQRC for continuing to use multiple IPs to indulge in this same behaviour--Cailil talk 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it would be good if we could agree on a process for dealing with this problem. For instance should we revert and semi-protect every article these IPs edit then block the IP? This is my preferred option. This gives us time and breathing space to a)figure out what needs o be review (per WP:UNDUE) and b) it prevents recurrence of attacks where the info is due. Any thoughts--Cailil talk 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be OK with that. Ty 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly I am convinced that the Bracha Ettinger story is exposed as hoax, fakery and sockpuppetry. I've removed Ettinger from Women artists and Postmodern art because frankly she never belonged in those articles in the first place. She was placed on a list that read: "it was painting of the artists Valerio Adami, Daniel Buren, Marcel Duchamp, Bracha Ettinger and Barnett Newman that, after the avant-garde's time and the painting of Paul Cézanne and Wassili Kandinsky, was the vehicle for new ideas of the sublime in contemporary art." - its way beyond where she belongs to be, and she's listed but it's clearly a contrived addition...We have to be careful to realize that she is basically notable, and she has authored published essays and books and she has exhibited her paintings in galleries and museums - but like many other notable figures in the art world she is largely obscure and simply isn't that well known....yet. Modernist (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It a mess - Ettinger belongs in certain articles with certain mentions and she should be removed from places that she does not belong..like lists of enormously important and famous contributors to art and science. Although she belongs on more general lists of artists and scientists. She belongs where she is referenced specifically and should be removed where the mention is simply ambiguous. Modernist (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Eyes please on List of painters by name. Ty 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPs are edit warring, as soon as one stops, another starts, I think there is a deeper agenda at work then what has already come up on WP:ANI. They seem voracious about deleting Ettinger everywhere, irregardless of logic or fairness. I'm at a loss how to proceed...except to keep rolling em back. I sense a ruse, a fake, a nest of snakes.....Modernist (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • more IPS
    85.250.86.53 (Talk);
    89.139.9.85 (Talk);
    89.0.12.202;
    89.138.185.137;
    93.172.35.29;
    89.138.174.146;
    89.0.9.203;
    89.139.239.124;
    89.138.161.140;
    89.139.191.198
    Ugh. The G-hits from my linked search at the top of this section revealed the following 50 articles which had mentions of Ettinger. At a guess, from the text I saw in the various hits, probably 50%-75% of them may be gratuitous insertions. I'd bet histories will reveal recent activity by our rouge IPs on these articles. I'm going to sleep.

    Women artists The Matrix Robert Doisneau Psychoanalytic theory Psychoanalysis Postmodern feminism Postmodern art Other Luce Irigaray List of psychology topics List of psychoanalytical theorists List of postmodern critics List of painters by name List of French artists List of feminists List of female philosophers List of contemporary artists Linda Nochlin Julia Kristeva Jacques Lacan Jacques Derrida Influences and interpretations of The Matrix History of feminism Hans Prinzhorn Hélène Cixous Griselda Pollock Gender Gender studies Gaze French structuralist feminism Film theory Feminist theory Feminist philosophy Feminist film theory Feminism Feminism in France Feminism and the Oedipus complex Félix Guattari Eva Hesse Eurydice European Graduate School Emmanuel Levinas Drawing Center Cultural studies Christine Buci-Glucksmann Bracha L. Ettinger Art history Antigone Aesthetics Écriture féminine

    Pigman☿ 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    part 2

    The attacks against Bracha L. Ettinger are continuing. An anonymous acting from different Israeli IP's is removing all mentions of this artist from different articles with the untrue explanation that there is a consensus to remove her from major topics.

    There is no such consensus. My guess is that this user is deleting mentions of Ettinger just because the information about her was added by User:Marina T., who is suspected to be related to the notorious Israeli troll User:Nnimrodd. This suspicion was never properly confirmed, and in any case, the info about Ettinger appears to be sourced and not blatantly self-promotional.

    I agree with the position of Phil Sandifer in the discussion above ("Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock") - it is possible that Ettinger is not be the most notable feminist, psychoanalyst or artist and in that case she shouldn't be mentioned in every article on these topics, but such drive-by removal of her name from every place without proper consensus is definitely wrong.

    Also, this frequent IP changing is worrying and the user already admitted that he is "changing my IP after each edit for security reasons". If he would be acting in good faith, he wouldn't have to change his IP all the time. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and i forgot to mention that this anonymous editor wrote personal attacks in Hebrew on my talk page twice. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just how close are the IPs being used? Any chance of a rangeblock? Alternatively, you can watch and perhaps semiprotect the relevant articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the earlier thread User:NZQRC seems to admit being the one who was editing from all those IPs. Looks like he made a few posts, then went back to his old tactics. It's a shame because his arguments for many of these edits actually were getting some traction, but it looks like he'd rather be disruptive by hopping IPs every two minutes so that no one can engage him in discussion. If there's any way he can be encouraged to stick to his registered and stand up like a man (woman?) and make a case for what he's doing, he and the project would be much better served. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to Stephen, the IPs mostly resolve to Haifa - and NZQRC is going through a huge volume of them. I don't know if a range block is possible - it will take a significant amount of time and effort just to identify the removals and the IPs involved. As it stands NZQRC is not blocked - I'm bordering on blocking them per WP:DUCK for using multiple accounts (IPs) to avoid scrutiny. This behaviour is beyond the WP:SPIDER level of disruption--Cailil talk 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack. The ducks are now blocked at midnight. Given the persistence we may see more, though. A good article for people to watchlist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The IPs are also having a go at any articles with Ettinger mentioned. See Modernist's contributions for where he has reverted. Ty 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know that it's fun, but please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Last chance: The German Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia after the English one. Now check those links: [18], [19] [20] (most of the results came from this photo [21]). You can do the same in every Wikipedia you want except the French Wikipedia (she's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.161 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    ←Thanks Modernist and to everyone else for their diligence in tracking this problem. I'm implementing an emergency semi-protection on all the articles where Modernist reverted NZQRC's IPs (this will exclude the articles where she may be unduely represented). This will be a week long semi-protection. Also I had been blocking these IPs for 3 days. I'm now going to reblock, the one's I've already caught, for a month and then block the next lot for a month too. If any one thinks any of this is overly harsh just drop me a line--Cailil talk 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    part 3

    I've started Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NZQRC - all the IPs listed have been blocked until the 26th of September 2006. Can anyone who finds any further NZQRC socks please tag the IP's talk pages with {{sockpuppet|NZQRC}}--Cailil talk 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    3 more - tagged but unblocked:User talk:89.139.239.124; - User talk:89.0.9.203; - User talk:89.138.56.247; Modernist (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They're blocked now--Cailil talk 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually they are tagged but I don't see a block Modernist (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can check it in their block logs[22][23] - the templates saying "you've been blocked" are manually added and I forgot to add them here. But i've fixed that now--Cailil talk 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In an attempt to reduce the number of protected pages we have, I am going through articles Ettinger is currently inappropriately linked in and removing her, then unprotecting as that article is, presumably, no longer a target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, good. At least a few of us will have the pages watch-listed in case of any further funny business--Cailil talk 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a thought, but do we know about any other purging of Nimrod Kamer additions (some of which will be spam, others not)? This is a link to the dashboard for User:Nnimrodd, and this is the one for User;Marina T.
    From a quick glance at these I would watch Joshua Simon, Michal Heiman, Herzliya Biennial, Michail Grobman, Efrat Abramov and what links to their articles. Also take a look here for even more--Cailil talk 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "War on wikipedia!!" (yawn) and disruptive editing.

    Please see external thread - here and repeated disruptive editing on the talk page of List of new religious movements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by IP and likely the same as Richard Rolles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well as vandalism of my old user page by the same user. This is a continuation of the issue I raised previously here that was never really addressed. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the big issue here? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Richard Rolles indefinitely. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Richard Rolles"? Clever name, and endorse block. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse block. User continued flagrant WP:NPA violations after warning. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Annnnnnd 10 more administrators have added this page to their watchlist, making any possibility of vandalizing it utterly impossible. Sometimes I lol, like right now. --mboverload@ 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably see also this thread.Geni 12:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that is the thread that I originally refer to in my earlier topic here on "off-wiki 'assault'". --Justallofthem (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MOSNUM

    Resolved
     – No administrative intervention required.

    Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A small group of experienced editors are effectively hijacking WP:MOSNUM, claiming their point of view reflects consensus when in fact it does not. They are using their modifications to MOSNUM to justify many edits elsewhere, which are not in compliance with the consensus view of "date autoformatting." These editors are well-intentioned, but over-hasty in claiming consensus. (sdsds - talk) 10:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crikey! Can you be more specific, give diffs and explain what you are asking admin intervention for? --Pete (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I understand reading all of Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) can be a bit daunting! This edit shows the debate was closed as "resolved" when in fact it was not. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's best practices for an editor who was active in a debate to close it. If there was consensus, a non-involved editor should have "made the call." (sdsds - talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look at Arguments for and against where one of the leads in introducing discussion Tony1 has carefully set out the reasons for considering an optional change wherein autodatelinking is deprecated. No one is forcing anyone nor cutting off constructive criticism or debate while the virulent opponents to change have the temerity to go about bandying claims of "hijacking". The issue is being resolved and if a consensus has not been reached, it is a developing consensus that is obviously going one way, despite the cries of "foul" from some individuals. FWiW, this is another attempt to stifle discourse when "things don't go their way". Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    For context, an example of one of these edits is here - delinking dates (to get rid of the blue I suppose) that will inadvertently stop the software from fulfilling date display preferences. This contradicts recent practice (ie over the last few years) so although I don't think admins can do anything specifically about this, since it is a large change in behaviour perhaps the Community noticeboard should be used for an announcement.--Commander Keane (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In reading through the back story, this has been a two-year long discussion on the value of having autodate linking that may not be used by the majority of Wikipedia readers (as well as providing non-content links). FWiW, regardless of the "practise", the discussion clearly indicated that only a tiny percentage of users even had date preferences set in their browsers. BTW, is this even the proper forum to discuss essentially a "content issue"? I do not see examples of malefeasance as claimed. Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Commander K, it was flagged at the VP, at numerous WikiProject pages, and more than 100 article talk pages. There were many responses, and apart from a few clusters of ill-will, they were overwhelmingly positive about the proposal (I can provide a centralised link if you wish); this is in addition to the ongoing debate at MOSNUM talk (the central location for such debates) over some six weeks, which cam to a head in the calls for consensus. Tony (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a case of a clash between ideals and reality. We all, I think, want auto date formats. As in, it is the desire of pretty much everyone in the debate that each reader can see the dates in their own preferred form. Sadly, the fact is that the autolinking method, which is presently the only way to achieve automation of date formats according to preferences on Wikipedia, doesn't live up to its promises. Firstly, it doesn't work for the great majority of readers who don't have an account or sign in, or who do but don't activate preferences. Secondly, it allows editors to type in inconsistent dates in an article and not see how it will look to the great majority because *their* preferences are set to a particular format. Furthermore it leads to an unfortunate "blue sea" effect which denigrates the quality or "standout" value of actual links in the article, and the links if clicked on are monumentally useless in all but a few very major articles of moment (eg World War Two). At the end of the day our objective should be a readable encyclopaedia and, short of some sort of developer hack which is never going to happen, the proposal Tony and others have put forward is the best way forward so long as fights over date formats between editors don't become a problem as a result. It's probably worth noting that I initially opposed the proposal. Orderinchaos 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with Orderinchaos's statement "we all, I think, want auto date formats." Given that various national varieties of English will always be used in Wikipedia, I prefer to see consistency within an article, and that includes the date format. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have misunderstood me. I was meaning in an ideal world, i.e., assuming that all technical hurdles were overcome and every user could indeed see the dates the way they wished, rather than a fraction of one percent of users as was the case with the date linking method. Orderinchaos 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The example Channel Tunnel provides an excellent illustration of one of the problems caused by autoformatting. The mix of date formats is regarded as an error that ordinary readers will see but are concealed from the view of editors that use autoformatting - the very editors that are needed to correct the concealed error. Some editors now report that they turn preference to 'No preference' so that concealed errors are revealed. Furthermore, it turns out that autoformatting contains a technical error whereby it cannot be used on non-Gregorian dates. Other errors include date range munging like: '12 - March 15'. Do we really need to have the whole debate one more time in ANI? If so, I am sure the decision will be the same, the facts have not changed. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Coming here and starting an entire ANI is an overblown, knee-jerk over-reaction. The editors who’ve “hijacked” MOSNUM have been engaged in this debate for a long, long time. As a result, they’ve seen the epiphany editors have recently had over how date autoformatting only masks editorial content problems from editors and doesn’t benefit 99.9% of our readership (I.P. users) whatsoever. Some of the editors who were part of this new consensus said *what?* and turned off their user date setting in their user preferences in order to understand the junk we were forcing regular readers to look at. In some cases, we editors thought a date was a wonderful-looking June 6, 2005 when, really, 99.9% of Wikipedia’s readership were looking at 2005-06-06.

      User sdsds has been largely absent from this discussion. He weighed in once on 16:14, 15 August 2008, and was completely silent—and, I assume, totally clueless to the developing consensus—until 23:22, 24 August 2008 when he became extraordinarily active and quite animated about the new direction we were heading.

      This is the second time (for me) in last few months that an editor has been absent from large portions of a discussion, and when they come back and are thunderstruck at the new consensus, they don’t go with the flow at all well. If our previous experience with the other editor in that other issue is any indication, dealing with sdsds is going to be difficult; he has simply missed out on all that goings-on that transpired, and sorting through it with an open mind would be difficult for anyone.

      Finally, since when can a small group of editors “hijack” any article? I think this term tends to be thrown around when there are only a few, highly motivated editors driving the issue through to a conclusion, and the majority of editors think it’s probably a good idea. “Change” on Wikipedia is never easy and there will always be editors who don’t agree; particularly when they’ve been absent from the vast majority of the discussion. Greg L (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When only a small group of editors edit it, and they do not hesitate to revert war; MOSNUM has been protected at least twice because of disputes on other issues. There is sentiment, among several of us half-dozen regulars, that autoformatting is not the best idea; there is no consensus to deprecate it - indeed there have been objections on the talk page (not only from sdsd) in the last twelve hours. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was solid consensus for deprecation after a long, long debate. Anderson loves to twist and spin with language, and the use of "half-dozen" serves his purposes well. Go look there for yourself. And if that's not enough, a collection of supportive statements from many talk pages is here. But I don't know why we're turning this into a complete duplicate of the debate at MOSNUM. This is ANI. No administrator action appears remotely relevant. I suggest that this page be closed. Tony (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have claimed elsewhere; please provide a link. That three editors have vociferously complained in the four hours since MOSNUM read not encouraged does seem to throw some doubt on the widespread nature of this alleged consensus. (We would be better off if autoformatting had never existed; but deprecation of this long-established practice, as opposed to presenting the arguments against it, requires very wide-spread consensus.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to occur all the time. The proponents take read of the general consensus from a number of middle-of-the-road editors, who write things along the lines of “I didn’t know autoformatting was doing that to regular I.P. users, this makes sense to me to no longer use them”, and there seems to always be an editor or two who are awfully vociferous on the issue (starting an ANI over it, as if the proponent editors strapped C4 to their bodies when they “hijacked” all of MOSNUM). This is particularly true when this sdsds editor doesn’t even participate in the bulk of the deliberations and has a WTF reaction to what’s been going on after a decision has been made. That tends to produce absurd allegations like those of sdsds.

      But just because an editor is perfectly willing to don orange robes and set themselves alight over an issue is insufficient to require that we all go over the entire deliberation process—he simply missed out. And do we need his buy-in? No. A consensus on Wikipedia does not require that 100% of editors are in complete agreement, and it never did—particularly for an editor who didn’t even participate in the bulk of the discussions.

      Finally, a consensus is reached by considering the various opinions of all the editors and hashing out what seems like the wisest course. Sound and rational reasoning must be put forth to hold sway with others. The arguments advanced by sdsds, while highly impassioned, are simply not persuasive. Greg L (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is rare for any topic to be discussed as long and thoroughly as this one. I poke my nose into Talk:MosNum and the pot is still bubbling. Has been for months, if not years. I haven't checked, but I dare say that several of the participants are admins. So I'm not sure why AN/I reporting is needed. Perhaps to get eyes on the topic that are unfamiliar with the long debate. I've been religiously autoformatting dates for years. I turned off my date preferences a year or so back so that I could see what most Wikipedia users see - the unlovely mish-mash of date formats - and correct them. Whenever I got the urge, I'd check the then crop of FAs, and guess what, there'd always be a few with differing date formats. Our best articles, looking unprofessional, and worse, full of links for users to click and end up on a page utterly unrelated to the article's subject. Recently Tony summarised the drawbacks of autoformatting and I was a convert. I'm not going to go out and remove every autoformatted date I see, but when I change or insert a date, I don't wikilink it. I urge all editors to check out MosNum from time to time, weigh in on discussion, and keep up to date with current thinking. I don't think that the debate has been hijacked to an early end. I think it went on for about a year too long, and it came to the logical conclusion, because there are simply no good reasons for supporting what was originally a developer's hack. --Pete (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I wrote above of “middle-of-the-road editors” and of “hashing out what seems like the wisest course”, I was referring to editors like Pete here. Greg L (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree with Pete's summation here. I well and truly had to be convinced, a check of Mosnum will confirm I was originally a vociferous opponent of the proposal, but was ultimately swayed when I realised what most users actually see - and it really is an unacceptable mess. We should be an encyclopaedia for readers, first and foremost. Orderinchaos 06:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could somebody please explain what urgent administrative intervention is required on this topic? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly can't see any. Orderinchaos 06:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ckatz is an admirable contributor to WP, with 28,000 edits and barnstars on his page. However, his striking of Tim Vickers' aministrative action in declaring this discussion "Resolved" needs to be seriously questioned. I ask him to read this policy statement:

    A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions.... Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents. Wheel warring has been used as grounds for immediate revocation of adminship with Arbitration following in a number of cases.

    Now, although in the context this refers to an ensuing chain of reversions, the spirit of the statement is that admins should tread very carefully when it comes to undoing each others' actions; apart from the instability it creates, it's a poor example to the rest of us of what is meant by "good faith" and the avoidance of conflict, especially conflict that could be the germ of an edit war; we look to admins to provide an example of smooth, collaborative behaviour. I see no evidence of any attempt to warn Tim Vickers that his admin action was about to be contested and reverted by another admin. In addition, this statement at the same policy page is relevant, since Ckatz was indeed responding to a request for assistance by Sdsds:

    Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information, or in a dispute. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with.

    I'm concerned that Ckatz has a conflict of interest in this issue, having been a robust and early opponent of the reform. Under these circumstances, he cannot act in the capacity of an administrator. I believe that the proper action is for him to self-revert his striking of his colleague's decision.

    I note also that the instigator of this page, Sdsds, has advised me that he will no longer contest the change.Tony (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Recently I had raised the point on the MOSNUM discussion page that certain editors supporting the deprecation of autoformatting were creating a climate that was not conducive to open debate. Problems included insults and inappropriate language (such as "spoon-feed", "privileged" and "act like grownups") directed at opponents. All in all, it did not inspire me to actively continue to participate there. Having read the preceding post, I can honestly say I would prefer to return to that arena, rather than address such an offensive action. Frankly, I am appalled that Tony would attempt to misrepresent my actions in such a negative manner, especially as he did not even extend me the courtesy of contacting me first. If any other editor wishes to enquire about this, I will certainly do my best to respond to any questions. As for Tony, though, all I can say is that I hope he has the decency to immediately remove his inappropriate, insulting and offensive post. --Ckatzchatspy 09:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ckatz, please note that I began my post by saying that you are "an admirable contributor to WP, with 28,000 edits and barnstars on [your] page". I want to reinforce that by pointing out the extraordinary amount of administrative good that you do, readily apparent in your contribs list. Please don't react to my post emotionally—I do not believe it was "inappropriate, insulting and offensive", nor that I lack "decency". I guess I didn't contact you first because I'm frankly a little nervous in dealing with you on a one-to-one basis: you're very emotional about this issue.
    My points deserve substantive answers, or simple action in self-reverting per the evidence and the policy that I've explained. I certainly won't think the worse of you for doing so, and I don't think anyone else will—quite the opposite, actually: it would demonstrate that you really are worthy of the title "administrator". I think you've made a misjudgement (such as we all do from time to time), and ask for calm, measured remedial action. Tony (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I had hoped you would remove the post. You may not see it as offensive, but I certainly do. As for your most recent statement, either provide support for your claims about my actions (such as that I am supposedly "very emotional" about this issue), or stop making them. Frankly, based on how you have responded to others during the autoformatting issue, I find it hard to believe that anything I've said would - or even could - make you "nervous". --Ckatzchatspy 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to Tim: Earlier, you asked why this should be on the AN/I board. I would suggest that a simple review of contributions to the autoformatting discussion from Tony, Greg L and other proponents of the change, directed at opponents of the change, will demonstrate why this ended up here. --Ckatzchatspy 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment to Tony: Yes, I am discouraged enough to give up, and will no longer be actively voicing or explaining my opposition to this rewrite of MOSNUM. That is a kind of "consensus" within which we can collaborate. (sdsds - talk) 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There was never any need for urgent administrative intervention on Talk:MOSNUM. That venue has plenty of pro-active, knowledgeable editors who can band together to handle any inappropriate conduct from a small group of editors in a leadership role. No small group of editors can “hijack” Talk:MOSNUM and if they tried to do so and were editwarring, MOSNUM would have quickly been locked down and the misbehaving editors sanctioned. This is a simple case of a single editor coming back late to a discussion (after having missed out on the vast majority of developments), and wonder why the whole congregation had decided to pull down the old church and build a new one on a different site. This issue should be closed.

      And on a parting note, I used phrases such as “Do we editors need special tools that can spoon-feed custom content just for us—as if we’re a special privileged class? We should be looking at exactly the same editorial content as regular users.” There is nothing wrong at all with a statement like that. May I remind Ckatz that Wikipedia has clear rules against “personal attacks” (death threats, threats of legal action, racially insulting someone, etc.) and also has rules against incivility. This later class of misconduct covers such behavior as writing “if you aren’t capable of dealing with issues this complex, why don’t you leave it to someone who is more intelligent?” Ckatz, I utterly reject your claim that what I wrote (and you have tried to impeach) is “inappropriate language” that can’t be uttered in a decent and civilized society. Your accusation strikes me as grand-standing by someone who thinks “leadership” is now measured by how exceedingly PC someone can be. Rhetorical questions directed at no one in particular—other than editors as a class, a class that includes me—such as I’ve employed to make some of my points, are the simple tools of debate that are taught in any high-school-level debate class. So I’ll thank you to not be so quick to slander me with unfounded allegations of inappropriate conduct here. Wikipedia can not be allowed to be hijacked by a mentality that one “wins” by being more thin-skinned than the next guy; our debates would become utterly worthless baby pablum. Wikipedia’s ability to resolve disputes and identify a consensus are already handicapped enough (*oops, I used the H-word*) without you standing on a soapbox, impugning my reputation, and presuming to tell me how I may think or express my thoughts. Greg L (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      P.S. I agree completely with everything Tony wrote in his 08:13, 26 August 2008 post. I think he hit the nail right on the head as to why we are still here with an incident still marked as “active.” I also think Ckatz’s response to Tony’s post was unhelpful and not at all what should be expected of an administrator. Greg L (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignore anons?

    I am an anon contributor from a dynamically-assigned IP network. I don't usually engage in talk-page discussion but am currently involved in a heated move-related discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland. As part of that discussion, one editor (User:Pureditor) has posted a comment encouraging other's to ignore my contributions, "No its just an ip editor, he or she 'chooses' to be anon. I reckon we ignore it for obvious reasons." He/she had earlier removed my contributions to the page with the comment, "Ip address's first post, with knowledge of Wikipedia protocol = an obvious sockpuppet".

    On the first occasion, I posted a message to his/her talk page. On the second occasion, I replied on Talk:Republic of Ireland. In repose to that message, User:Pureditor replied on the talk page for the dynamic IP I was using at the time say that, "Ignoring ip addresses editors is standard practice in important discussions like this. Sorry, but thats just the way it is."

    I do not wish to create a user name. I contribute without a user name, as is my right. I understand the benefits of having a user name, but I do not want one. Anonymous IP-based contribution have been a cornerstone of WP since it's inception and I do not see why my contributions to one section of WP should be removed or ignored because of that.

    Can we please have some clarity with regard to IP-based contributions? --89.19.82.127 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    As far as I am aware you are allowed to edit wikipedia from Anonymous IP addresses. It is only when the IP starts to vandalise the Wiki when you find yourself getting into trouble. I am not to sure about your case but I know that you are free to contribute and talk in the talk pages if you wish. If I am wrong feel free to correct me. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Sock is a major worry and consideration here. I have participated in many discussions and always ip votes have been discounted as they are prone to dispute. This is not a one of case or one editor 'being picked on'. They are several othe editors in this discussion also worried about these ip votes. The only place for this to be sorted out is the respective talk page where the discussion is taking place.Pureditor 11:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: (edit conflict) I am the only IP-based contributor to the discussion. The only other editor to have remarked (politely and with a tone of regret) was Red King, who said in his experience he had noticed that there was a danger that IP-based contributions may not carry the same weight as a user-name based contributions. All other editors engaged properly and civilly with me.
    Red King's concerns are not in question. What is in question is User:Pureditor blanking of my contributions and encouraging of others to ignore my contributions because I am an IP-based editor.
    My mistake sorry. Yes I see what you are saying User:Pureditor WP:Sock is very strict on what can and cant be done in votes. It was my misunderstanding I didnt realise that it was a vote. In this case User talk:89.19.82.127 you will have to not take part in this as it is a vote from which IP votes are not generally counted as it can be open to abuse. Carried the debate on the related talkpage. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bounty, with your reference to WP:SOCK are you inferring that I am a sock? Please assume good faith or run a check-user if you are suspicious. Where does WP:SOCK say that an IP cannot be involved in a discussion/poll? You say that it is "very strict on what can and cant be done in votes." If it is so, please indicate where. (BTW there is no such thing as a "vote" on WP - WP:NOT a democracy).
    Specifically, I am enquiring with reference to comments made that IP-based contributions should be ignored/removed? --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bounty, I see from your user page that you are somewhat eager to become an admin. While that certainly is a noble pursuit, if you wish to have any realistic chances of passing an RfA, you should make sure you actually understand core policy (in this case, WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, and, even more importantly, actually read, then comprehend, what is being said before rushing to talk pages. Badger Drink (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Two major misunderstandings here: the discussion is not a vote - weight of numbers (logged-in or not) is not a substitute for quality of argument. More pressingly, WP:SOCK says nothing to restrict non-logged-in editors from participating in discussions - they have the same right in this regard as logged-in editors. WP:SOCK just says there is to be no sockpuppetry, i.e. deceitful multiple voting, and I see no insinuation or evidence of that in the discussion. Indeed, sockpuppetry is no less of a problem with logged-in accounts. There is nothing whatsoever in policy or common practice preventing an editor from participating merely because they choose not to log in - BountyHunter2008 is mistaken. Knepflerle (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Knepflerle. As I wrote before, what is in question is User:Pureditor blanking of my contributions and encouraging of others to ignore my contributions because I am an IP-based editor. Talk of the counting of "votes" is neither here-nor-there. We are participating in a discussion. --78.152.211.51 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New policy?

    Arising from the comments made by BountyHunter above, Pureditor has further stuck out my comments on Talk:Republic of Ireand. BountyHunter, are we creating new policy here? Please be careful to cite correct policy correctly. --78.152.209.11 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be accurate, your vote was struck out. That's it. The 'strike' was moved correctly to the right place almost immediately.Pureditor 11:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have commented there, any striking out is entirely premature. Please wait until this post has had some more input, there is no mad rush to act here. Knepflerle (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was accurate. You "further stuck out my comments". --78.152.211.51 (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a Democracy, and as such, we do not "vote" on issues. We do often preface our statements with a simplification of our position - "support" / "oppose" / whatever - but no changes are to be made based on a simple majority vote. Pureditor - as has been said above, please do not confuse "consensus" with "majority", and please understand that strength of argument always trumps simple numbers. Your actions are ignorant of policy and seem borderline hostile towards a good-faith contributor. Badger Drink (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editors who understand policy are first-class citizens in any debates regarding article content. I'm also worried about the talk of the discussion being a vote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IPs have the same weight for consensus building as registered. Does the accusation of socking arise because this is a dynamic IP? Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All theoretically true, but in practice, IP's and redlinks draw suspicion from users who have been around for awhile, especially if their work looks similar to a known registered user. I'm not at all saying that's the case here, nor am I saying it isn't; it's just a general statement of reality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be. A redlink may catch someone's eye, but in practice, if and when the content posted is confirmed to be well-reasoned, the suspicion quickly dries up. Any admin who would automatically discount the statements of an I.P. or redlink, or place said comments at an arbitrary "lower weight" solely on the basis of being from an I.P. or redlink, should be removed from his or her administrative capacity at once. Badger Drink (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see of the talk page history, the IP in question has fully disclosed the dynamic nature of his IP and when it changed. Yet their comments were struck under an unclear understanding of WP:SOCK. Reviews of that, and WP:CONS, might be in order. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And they shouldn't. If people spent less time standing on tall stools and shrieking because they thought an anonymous argument had been announced by a BANZORRED!!!11 user then we'd all have a better time of things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Does the accusation of socking arise because this is a dynamic IP?" From the comments made in one of the edit summaries, I would say it could play a part (because each dynamically-generated IP address has little or no contribution history). Coupled with my obvious understanding of WP beyond a first time users, that's a reasonable mistake if someone is not familiar with dynamic IPs, but by-passes Assume Good Faith. My contribution however were full, lengthy, thought-out and explained posts - not mere "Support/Oppose" vote-rigging - nor was there any suspicion that I was engage in tag-teaming or building straw men, so there was no further reason to suspect be as a sock. --78.152.212.210 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There has to be compelling evidence for sockpuppetry, either through checkuser or at least through comparison of content and writing style. It is inappropriate to automatically disregard an IP as a sockpuppet, and an admin or someone who wants to be an admin should know that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the only problem comes when an editor tries to obtain undue weight for his views by falsely making them appear to have more popular support. This can happen whether editors are logged in or not - see WP:SSP. As far as I am aware, this misrepresentation has not occurred here - the editor in question has openly disclosed which edits are his (though a short "signature" that is common to each would clarify things somewhat - perhaps initials or a motto). It is somewhat harder to check the good standing of an editor using DHCP and keep up a sustained dialogue with them due to the lack of static talk page, hence the slightly elevated suspicion. But when there is no evidence of misrepresentation, there's no reason not to afford IP's the same good faith and respect we give to logged-in editors. Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All this ANI thing, could've been avoided, if the anon would simply become a registered user. As I've asked him/her before, what are ya afraid of? at least you'd end any suspicions of sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be fine, except for that whole "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" thing... UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But signing in would help (at least it wouldn't hurt). GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can certainly sympathize with reg editors dealing with contentious articles and past socking finding it difficult to give IPs the good faith they may afford reg accounts. This is distinct from using an editor's IP status against him in a dispute. Commenting on content not contributor is generally a sound principle. "Sign up" is the default response to any issue any IP encounters: it is a response counter to policy, which leaves the issues outstanding regardless of what that particular IP does. 86.44.28.41 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholly support the above contribution (from a different anon). (Posted by the original IP contributor.) --78.152.202.221 (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Still wish (both of you) would reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The scuffle seems to originate from a proposal to move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). Pureditor strongly supports, while the I.P. opposes. AGF is great and all that, but this seems to be a case of an editor on side "a" of the fence doing whatever he or she can to undermine editors on side "b" of the fence (probably due to a misconstrued notion that majority votes dictate policy). Oddly enough, Pureditor, who himself said "address's first post, with knowledge of Wikipedia protocol = an obvious sockpuppet", started off on Wikipedia by creating a redirect - not exactly beginning-level editing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one! Badger Drink (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The background be as it may; as long as it is agreed the anonymous editor has a right to participate in discussion and that his edits will not be automatically struck out, there is no need for admin intervention here. I think the policy misunderstanding has been cleared up now and the content discussion can proceed as before. Knepflerle (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I utterly non-surprised? Badger Drink (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This would've been all avoidable, if the anon became a registerd user. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is not a requirement (and I'd personally fight very hard for it to remain this way). And I'm not sure that would have prevented Pureditor to attribute his own logged out edit to another editor, per checkuser -- lucasbfr talk 20:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I miss something here? You are saying that Pureditor would not have resorted to sockpuppetry had the IP editors registered an account? That is ridiculous, to say the least. You should write on your user page 100 times IP editors can have valuable opinions too, and are allowed to express them, just like me. No cut & paste allowed. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bizarre behavior from Pureditor. I was about to respond and put my agreement behind Knepflerie's summary that there is no need for admin intervention. I would have liked to have heard word back from Pureditor that he would respect my (and any other IP-based contributors) contributions at the same level that he would resect any other editor - I didn't have time to make this post earlier, but had read Knepflerie's post - but I see that this sentiment has since been over taken by events. Utterly bizarre. Thank you Thatcher for your diligenence. (Posted by the original IP contributor) --89.19.88.228 (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor / RFC failing to resolve

    Could someone take a glance at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Posturewriter and Posturewriter (talk · contribs)? This is an SPA editor who I think has long gone past the point of exhausting community patience. The dispute has been going on for months; this editor has no interest in anything but editing one article, and attacking editors who won't let him because of his conflict of interest; and virtually every edit of this editor is now some kind of personal attack, accusation of bad faith or reading hostility into normal application of policy.

    • "Also if you don't want to create any more problems for yourself could you please stop acting like a pedantic, recidivistic nitpicking troll "[24]
    • "you have been forum shopping for cohorts to be part of an eraser gang to assist you in controlling content ... They don’t want you to examine how they are culling information to suit their purposes, and they are arrogantly refusing to edit the Varicose veins page because they don’t want you to see multiple experienced editors complaining in a hostile manner about their no-primary source policy" [25]
    • "you are quoting the ideas which you have sewn into the heads of other editors while Wikipedia forum shopping" [26]

    Are there grounds for asking for a community block for these long-running attacks and AGF breaches, or do we have to upgrade the RFC to arbitration? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Moreschi: Please note that your link goes to a page which has a window at the top stating that it was edited by me here [27]. It was not edited by me, but was actually edited by WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. However, I was the contributor to some of the history with impeccable "reliable sources". I would have been agreeable to an NPOV editor abbreviating it or editing it in a reasonable manner, and I subsequently attempted to integrate and abbreviate some of it myself as requested. I left some of the other material untouched because I knew any amendment or deletion would be constantly reverted as being disruptivePosturewriter (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)posturewriter[reply]
    That's a complete misrepresentation of the situation. The bulk of cruft in the diff cited came from Posturewriter, and one of the major factors that started the dispute was Posturewriter's continuing to add more and more, contrary to his own promises and other editors' attempts to abbreviate it (see the WP:COIN archive. Anyhow, that's a content matter. I'm asking about the conduct of an editor who if he can't edit his pet article has no interest in contributing beyond coming back every few days to post fresh attacks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your idea is to keep the world the same even if it is wrong, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s invitation to help change the world for the better — classic. I also enjoyed the early example of new essay WP:GANG being cited. 86.44.28.41 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks in Chinese?

    I have just noticed Hikikomori.hk (talk · contribs) adding comments to talk page warnings on User talk:Misofalalala and others in Chinese. --triwbe (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you understand Chinese? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We need someone fluent in Chinese and English to be sure. This issue of foreign language use comes up from time to time. If it's between two users who speak the same language and involves no one else, it's not such a big deal. But if they're replying to someone who doesn't speak that language, that should be avoided. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the text from one of the pages. 收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！ I'm almost positive that it has nothing to do with food or Yankees. Running it through a couple of online translators comes up with nonsense. I've left a message at WP:ZH. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I can confirm that 收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！ has nothing to do with food. It does, however, have something to do with crooked teeth, seven of something, and twisting. The rest of it isn't understandable to anyone but a native speaker (which I am not). Calvin 1998 (t-c) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a native speaker of Mandarin and not Cantonese, and this surprisingly doesn't mean anything to me at all. If you want a translation, be sure to get someone who speaks Cantonese. --Jiuguang (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I notified the user that s/he is under discussion here. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an attack. This is in Cantonese. I don't speak Cantonese well, so my translation may be a little off. But it should be mostly correct, that this sentence is very rude, using a bunch of curses used in Hong Kong. The translation is: "Shut up. You are so fucking annoying. You have not even fucking registered (or logged in)! Stupid (literally: penis head)!" It has nothing to do with teeth or the number seven. All those words mean penis in Hong Kong slang.--Mongol (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, folks, here's a radical idea: DELETE IT. Posting non-English in the English wikipedia amounts to vandalism and should be removed. Also, the poster should be advised not to do it again or else. You write in English here, or you don't write. Ya dig? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, posting non-English in English wikipedia is not vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attacks are, and the only reason for posting a comment in a foreign language is to make comments that are known only to whoever's saying them, i.e. likely an insult of some kind. So they should be deleted and the poster should be told not to do it again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't prohibit posting in non-English languages, and we certainly don't automatically consider non-English postings to be vandalism. And, forgive me, but given your earlier remark, I don't think you're the best one to make this call. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed that comment to be polite, because I was asked to do so. If you're going to refer to it, maybe I should re-post it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having said that, he does make a reasonable point. As a general rule posting in a language that is not the language in the wiki that you are using should be viewed with suspicion. There are of course valid reasons for doing it, e.g. the poster doesn't speak english and is asking for help with the language. Does this look like the case here? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what we're trying to determine. Our best guess right now is that it might just be random nonsense, but that is just a guess, and it comes from non-native speakers of the language. We're still waiting for a response from WP:ZH. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The complainant has good reason to think it's a personal attack. Here's another radical idea: ASK THE GUY. If you don't get a reasonable answer, then he's trolling, and should be dealt with accordingly. And if you've already asked him, and he ignores it, that's a dead giveaway that he's up to no good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, asking for help in sentences ending in exclamation points? Not bloody likely. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I remarked a little earlier today, there's a guideline on this at WP:TALK. Talk page comments are supposed to be in English on English Wikipedia. Although comments in other languages are not necessarily vandalism, it seems just a trifle ridiculous for users to scurry around trying to find out what someone's post means. I think the correct response to this is to say "I didn't understand you. Please translate." If it's on an article talk page and the poster can't or won't translate, it's deletable. And really, if a user doesn't understand English well enough to respond to that request, what possible interest could he have in English Wikipedia? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. As someone with SUL, sometimes I find myself editing on other Wikipedias of which I have no knowledge of the language. All I do is fix blatant mistakes, and I leave an English edit summary. Maybe sometime I might find a mistake and make an English post on the discussion page asking if it really is a mistake. Should the native speakers of that language ignore my request simply because it is in English? If a user communicates in another language, we should assume good faith and try to get someone who can communicate with them. If they have a legitimate complaint, then we improve. If they don't have anything contributive to say, then we remove or ignore them, just as we would if the comment was written in English. As for this user, I'm fairly sure that the user is using written Cantonese, as evidenced by the "hk" in their name and the sentence's syntax, but it does not appear to be constructive. Does anybody here contribute to WP:zh-yue? bibliomaniac15 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't write in the language of the wikipedia version you're working on, then what, pray tell, are you doing working on that branch of wikipedia? If you don't know the language what "blatant" mistakes could you be fixing? Font sizes? Sorry, but Mr. Anderson wins the cigar, as he hit this one on the head. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, converse in English (of whatever variety, and to whatever the extent of competency) on English Wikipedia. If things needing to be said are beyond your proficiency in English, ask for someone who knows your native language to help you - but beware, in that case, of atempting to edit (as opposed to converse) beyond the core of your competency. I've run across a number of instances recently of people attempting to correct English grammar, punctuation, etc. who were not sufficiently familiar with the subject. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Formatting fixes (tables, colors, indents, images, leading spaces, unclosed bold or italic tags)? Broken links or typos in references (particularly to English-language references)? Interlanguage article links? Reverting vandalism? Those are the first tasks off the top of my head; I'm sure there are scads of things a reasonably bright person could do on other Wikipediae without speaking the local language. I don't imagine that most people would spend a lot of time working on a Wikipedia where they didn't know the language, but I can see where there would be room for occasional edits—mostly to solve serendipitously discovered problems. If I were to leave a talk page comment in the 'wrong' language, I wouldn't expect any English response, nor would I expect a rapid resolution of whatever problem I brought up. Nevertheless, I also wouldn't want my good-faith comment deleted out of hand; someone who spoke English would hopefully, eventually, come along and act on whatever concern I raised.
    It's reasonable to request a translation wherever one might get one; it's reasonable to remove foreign-language comments written by editors who have a demonstrated history of abusive remarks. It's an ugly act indeed to remove foreign language comments if there's no evidence of bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) Thank you TenOfAllTrades for summing up my point exactly. As for the edits on other Wikipedias, Baseball Bugs, here are the diffs you wanted: cawiki, dawiki. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The guy's edits show he's conversant in English, so it is reasonable to be suspicious when Chinese suddenly pops in, especially where it did, and especially with exclamation points. Delete it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to get overly excited. The user was contacted, but doesn't seem to have been here for a few hours, which is perfectly normal. In the meantime, rather than reverting on sight, we're trying to figure out whether there's anything to be concerned about. Eventually either the user will return and explain himself, or he won't and we'll move on. And please, can we get over the exclamation points? For all you know he was saying "thanks!" Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it could be inflammatory, the safest course is to delete it with a request for an explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    收皮啦，好撚煩呀，又唔撚登入喎！柒頭！means "stop, this is getting annoying. You are a huge trouble." I have no idea what "柒頭" means. This is definitely not a personal attack. Furthermore the the above translation is not directed to Misofalalala (talk · contribs) but instead to Triwbe (talk · contribs) who has repeatedly (and mistakenly) tagged Misofalalala's articles for speedy deletion. On the other hand, "triwbe 屎忽痕，香港球員既野又關你事咩，你唔識唔代表唔出名，屌你老母啦" is a huge personal attack on Triwbe. It is directed towards Triwbe and translates into "Asshole, Hong Kong athletes are none of your business. The fact that you don't know someone doesn't mean their not famous." The last part "屌你老母啦" is a nasty attack on Triwbe's mother that I won't translate. This attack is venting frustration on Triwbe for repeatedly tagging User:Misofalalala's legitimate articles for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "柒頭" means penis head, used to describe stupid people. 撚 means masturbation or penis. It is an attack. --Mongol (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note, when I tagged as these articles for CSD they did not show any claim to notab. The fact that the editor later added the required information meant that the CSD could be removed, but at the time it was quite valid, for example. As for the repeated personal attacks, how do we deal with that on WP ? --triwbe (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I love how a personal attack in Chinese becomes a series of question marks in English. So ???????????????????????????????????????????????????. Edison2 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like our triwbe is one of our WP:NPP "warriors" that is tagging a page for speedy deletion four friggin' minutes after an apparently good-faith editor creates it. In the past these fellows have held little contests to see who could speedy the most pages - hope that is not happening again. Please see this thread. Doesn't excuse bringing in anyone's mother but I am sure it is frustrating. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice. Way to assume good faith. What other requirements of the speedy deletion rules do you think should be rescinded? Your claim here, and the claim in the link that you provided, do not provide evidence that anybody is having a contest to see who gets to delete something first, it's merely a bald-faced claim with nothing to back it up. Corvus cornixtalk 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I said that "In the past" there was a contest. You did not read the linked thread very carefully if you did not see that one of the NPP editors admitted that there was a contest. Personally, I strongly object to tagging someone's work for deletion two friggin' minutes after they create it (Iu Wai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) without at least having a real communication with the person. Not a template. A real communication where you write something to them and then you wait a reasonable period for a response before undoing their work. Sorry if I was harsh but I have seen this before and it doesn't look much better now. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff re "the contest". --Justallofthem (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, an unsubstantiated claim. Corvus cornixtalk 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've done my share of NPP and I do use CSD#A7 when appropriate, I also PROD, tag and even improve when able (add sources, add cats etc) and I have had a few -ve comments on my talk page (there for all to see) and I have responded accordingly. Does that give anyone the right to insult my mother ? Also, I have never "competed" on the number of CSDs, I am only trying to keep up standards --triwbe (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Absolutely not re the insults and they should be dealt with strongly. Re my strong words about NPP and WP:BITE, if the shoe does not fit you well then I apologize. Especially if you are not collecting notches. I did not do an extensive review of your work however I do know that I stand by the specific objections I made above. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What specific objections? That a number of unidentified editors are or have competed in some unsubstantiated contest? That you disagree with a speedy deletion tag? What specific objections do you have? I love the non-apology apology, too. Corvus cornixtalk 19:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I was clear enough. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You most certainly were. Corvus cornixtalk 21:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I've dealt with the insults by reverting them. I also blocked Hikikomori.hk for the abuse. Had he said it in English I would have left a strongly worded warning telling him to be civil but the fact that he chose to write it in a language that the vast majority of admins will not understand leads me to the conclusion that he did so in order not to be detected. Therefore I think a 24 hour block is necessary. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Theresa, I hope now he knows we are aware of him he will be more civil or at least insult us in a language we understand :-) --triwbe (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He only edits about once or twice a month, so he probably won't even notice the block. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Capitol Medical Center Colleges

    Resolved. Article AfD'd, sock blocked

    This user is obviously a single purpose account who is attempting to be disruptive can someone please take are of them? βcommand 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Disagreement in good faith does not an SPA make. Administrator intervention is definitely not needed (unless you want someone to block you for almost breaching 3RR). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, it is a username violation..... Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if that's so, AN/I is still not the proper venue to deal with it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I recently noticed that the user Betacommand has added a "prod" tag to the Capitol Medical Center Colleges article, so that it will be deleted if nobody objects within five days. I do not agree that this article should be deleted, and removed the tag. Nursing schools are usually parts of a country's secondary education system, and I do therefore not agree with the "not notable" explanation given by Betacommand.

    When I do this, Betacommand keeps replacing the tag, saying that my removal has been identified as vandalism. I tried to discuss with him on his talk page, but he removes my legitimate messages, calling them vandalism as well. I understand that I might be in the minority when it comes to my opinion on not deleting this article, but I am ready to defend that in civil discourse. Instead, this bully just deletes all my messages, calling them vandalism, and replaces the deletion tag, which specifically states that it is not to be put back. Is this how articles are supposed to be deleted on Wikipedia, with one person muffling all dissent? I would like a third party to review this case. Amsterdam Fire Brigade (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Single Purpose Account per WP:SOCK being disruptive, someone care to block? this users sole purpose here is to cause drama. βcommand 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's right. If anyone removes a prod tag, it should not be replaced. --NE2 23:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    if a vandal removes a tag it should be re-added. Please re-read WP:SOCK βcommand 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any proof or the identity of the sockpuppeteer? Doesn't matter, the prod is challenged, you might as well get over it. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since removing a prod tag isn't vandalism, your argument holds no water. Now, if he was a banned editor, it would be fine to revert, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. --NE2 23:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What the fuck. When is someone gonna indef block Betacommand? The disruption has gone on FAR too long. Tan ǀ 39 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing - I'm really suspicious of an account that was created nearly a year ago, has no contributions whatsoever, and suddenly pops up to remove a quite correct PROD tag attached by Betacommand. That just screams "sleeper sock" to me. Nevertheless, the correct response is to send the article to AfD (which I'm about to do). Black Kite 00:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares? AfD it - it takes 20 seconds. --mboverload@ 00:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done. It might interest a passing checkuser, though. Black Kite 00:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed a sockpuppet/SPA/vandal, whatever term you want to use, who was trolling Betacommand. In this case, his call was undoubtedly correct. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. Betacommand's pattern of attempting to delete Capitol Medical Center Colleges, however, was entirely uncalled for, despite his prescience. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP: 70.100.168.153

    Since February, Special:Contributions/70.100.168.153 has been editing articles on (mostly) 19th century European royalty, with edits which are so far outside fact as to be considered vandalism. These edits largely consist of adding bizarre changes of dates, names and genealogical information, a few incoherent POV inserts and also an occasional blanking of a page after having messed about with it. I haven't yet found one single edit by this user which could be construed as correct or anywhere near-enough to be innocently intended as such. (I'm having difficulty citing diffs here too - hence none as yet...sorry. See all contribs by this IP though...) They appeared to have quit for a few weeks but it started up again earlier this month - last edit was two days ago. No warnings etc have been given (obviously there's no Talk Page...) so I brought it here. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is likely just run-of-the-mill vandalism. If it continues, please make a report to WP:AIV. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There have been Blocks and warnings (my bad) - I'll take it to WP:AIV. Ta Plutonium27 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, if they haven't edited for two days, WP:AIV isn't going to do anything about it. You're probably better off leaving a warning, so when it starts back up, the warning will be on record. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiana Wesleyan University controversy

    I just blanked a section on Indiana Wesleyan University which is sourced to blogs, and is critical of the university. As I explained on the talk page I have nothing to do with the university. I have however gotten into trouble in the past for enforcing what I thought was the correct interpretation of WP:V, and since this issue seems to be a slow-moving edit war, I'd welcome an unbiased look at what I did. --Rividian (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure what admin action is needed here. Can you please be explicit?
    For the record, I had made the exact same edit to the article recently and was reverted (twice; once by an anonymous editor not only accusing me of having a COI but also labeling me an "unestablished editor;" clearly I touched on a sore point with someone...). --ElKevbo (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit appears reasonable to me. I'll keep the article on my watchlist. — Coren (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See... it's been re-added to the article, with the same explanation as ever: I am not allowed to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information, even if it's negative, I must just add some silly tag and leave the information in the article forever. Can someone please look at it? Surely this isn't the way things are supposed to be run... --Rividian (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I had added cite tags to several parts of that section some weeks ago. It appears they were removed without any real source being added. I think it may be a legit controversy, but the sources on there now are clearly not good enough to say everything that is being said. I put a criticism of it on the articles talk page with what I though what wrong with it if you want to check it out. I agree it should be cut down or removed if sources cannot be provided. And it is, i think, on it's third revert now.Charles Edward 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it may be a legitimate controversy, but as long as it's sourced to blogs anyone can create, it has no place in the article. Maybe it's real, but given the derth of real sources, it also seems quite possible it's an issue someone is trying to use Wikipedia to generate publicity for, because the non-blog media wasn't interested. I really thought we weren't supposed to do that. --Rividian (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree. Charles Edward 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The ramblings were purely original research and were cited only with a blog. There is no denying that. seicer | talk | contribs 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone else please consider reverting this WP:BLP violation immediately

    Resolved
     – No administrator action required. — Satori Son 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone please look over this comment [28] on a talk page. I commented a little lower on that page that it's a BLP violation to say a public commentator has a "vested interest" in something, and I provided a link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary website. I'm in a dispute with that editor, and I don't think it's a good idea for me to revert it. I'm not sure the editor actually understands what a "vested interest" actually is, so I don't think it's intentional, but I think an informal comment (not a template, please) on the editor's talk page would serve a good purpose. -- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you explain what exactly is wrong with that comment? I don't see any violations.--mboverload@ 01:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. a strong personal interest someone has in a matter because he or she might benefit from it
    I still can't see a violation? What do you think a vested interest is? --mboverload@ 02:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a vested interest doesn't necessarily mean impropriety - and it is fairly obvious that a conservative would have a vested interest in a Republican winning the election. Black Kite 02:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What interest would that be? If there's an adequate explanation for it, I'll be satisfied. I was under the impression that "vested interest" is almost always used to indicate a financial benefit, but if Robert A West is right, then this isn't a concern. There is no financial benefit to a conservative opinion journalist with a Republican administration, in fact, it's often asserted that the personal interest usually goes the other way: Rush Limbaugh's listenership is up during Democratic administrations, conservative publications usually get a circulation boost. Personal benefits aren't supposed to accrue to a journalist, even an opinion journalist, if their candidate gets into the White House. To accuse someone of that would be a serious charge for a newspaper columnist like Chapman, because newspapers take a dim view of that. For him, it would be a fire-able offense. Noroton (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're reading too much into it. A vested interest doesn't have to be financial, it can be personal, and I would just read that comment as meaning that a conservative would personally like to see a Rep win the presidency, much as, for instance, I have a vested interest in my football team winning tomorrow night. It doesn't mean I'll make any money out of it. Black Kite 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Or look at Wikipedia's article on the subject, which documents the common, current usage. The historical usage, a financial interest that has vested is not what most readers would infer, nor most probably what was intended. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice: I have notified User:Scjessey about this discussion about him. Maybe he can clear it up. --mboverload@ 02:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see where there's a significant problem with saying that a conservative or a liberal would have "a vested interest" in seeing their guy get elected, although it is kind of hyperbole. It once meant an actual expectation of monetary gain; now it really means not much more than saying "a personal want". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have absolutely no idea what the "violation" is supposed to be. If Noroton is referring to my comments about the conservative commentators Barone and Freddoso being unsuitable as reliable sources because of their allegiances, I can't honestly see anything wrong with my comment. I suspect this has more to do with this failed attempt to get me sanctioned than anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just been googling "vested interest" and took a quick look at the first 20 Google News hits for it, and there are various meanings for it, including the one I mentioned, but Scjessey's "allegiances" is something close to another meaning for it (essentially, "enjoying" something). I didn't realize that was a possible meaning. I no longer see a BLP violation. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and I would certainly love to get Scjessey sanctioned, but not for this. -- Noroton (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa there. Another time and place. =) --mboverload@ 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm patient. -- Noroton (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed summary and close Editor A says something. Editor B takes what Editor A says to mean something more drastic than he meant. Editor A and B kiss and makeup --mboverload@ 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, when I say "kiss and makeup" I don't mean to actually kiss, that's just a saying for making amends where I live. Just to be clear! =) --mboverload@ 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Now if I could only erase that image from my mind ... -- Noroton (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block Review: Repeat IP Vandal

    Resolved
     – thanks

    TravellingCari 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    150.101.245.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Can I get an eye or two on this? IP seems to vandalise a lot of pages on my watchlist. S/he has been given stair-step warnings and never seems to learn, repeating vandalism as soon as the block expires. I'm not really sure about blocking an IP for one week but I haven't seen any positive contributions. It's silly vandalism, but I'm not sure how else to handle. Was this the right course of action? TravellingCari 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it's definitely been the same person. I don't see any problem with it; might even be too light. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After 12h, 48h, and 72h, I think a week is about right. We get a bit more disruption-free time with every block. And with no positive contributions from that IP in over a month, we're not missing anything. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request undelete of image moved to Commons and deleted there.

    Request an undelete of "Image:Grandinheadrestraint.gif". This was moved to Commons, deleted from Wikipedia per CSD I8 as duplicated on Commons, and then was deleted on Commons. Unclear why.

    18:41, 30 March 2008 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Grandinheadrestraint.gif" ‎ (CSD I8: Image exists on the Commons) --John Nagle (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing this in Special:Log over there:

    20:31, 24 August 2008 Mardetanha (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Grandinheadrestraint.gif" ‎ (In category Unknown - No timestamp given; not edited for 121 days)

    Regardless, undeleted here. You'll still want to take this up with Commons, or just reupload it and fix that issue. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Cleaned up some tags on Wikipedia, so it's now valid here. It's not clear what happened at Commons, but the error message reads like something from a bad transwiki operation. --John Nagle (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SeanFromIT

    Resolved
     – Issue brought here in good faith but this is not really the right venue. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bringing this matter because I believe it is necessary. SeanFromIT (talk · contribs) is a pro-paranormal/fringe user as can be seen by his editing history. He created a bunch of rubbish which went unnoticed for months. The following articles he created I AfDed:

    In response, he made this comment. Also it is necessary to tell him not to create articles like this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eh, not sure that administrators have any role in this at the moment. He has stated that he is "done with Wikipedia" after this, leading me the believe that he would not be a problem. Either way we always need people willing to stick their heads out there to write new articles. He would be a good person to persuade to stick around (from my very, very limited view of his contributions). --mboverload@ 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One editor's cleanup is another editor's disruption. I only had experience of one of those AfDs, and that was a clear case of lack of reliably sourced notability. That's not to say that such an article could not be rescued from AFD - merely that it needs to be more tightly written to conform to wikipedia's standards - and not represent original research. I think perhaps with articles like these, it might be best to discuss the matter with the authors, rather than leap to deletion - that's not to say that you weren't right to list them, just maybe there's a better way to engage editors in discussion about the particular shortcomings in the articles.
    The kind of articles created is a matter for developing consensus. Some kinds of article are clearly not within the scope of wikipedia, but most of these are borderline - and could be acceptable if backed up by reliable sources. I would hope the contributing editor would have the patience to achieve that. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not really the right venue, though obviously it was brought here in good faith. The user in question is clearly active in the UFO community and if he decides not to depart after all he will need some tactful tutoring in WP:UNDUE. For now he feels bitten, but the deletion debates are valid and probably a necessary (FSVO) evil. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sleeper sock

    Thousands of socks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in May as a bad username, requested unblock yesterday, and it turns out that the reason they had logged in was to send abusive email, so I have reblocked with email disabled. I'd be interested in knowing if this is on the same range as Man with a tan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but only out of mild personal curiosity. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed re Change from Tillia tepe to Tillya Tepe

    Resolved

    Help! I am afraid I have made a mess and need some help, please. I was adding bits to the Tillia tepe article when I realised that the spelling of the name in English text has, within the past few years, become standardised to Tillya Tepe. Then I tried to adjust the redirect pages and now I think I have just created a real mess.

    While trying to move the Tillia tepe page to Tillya Tepe, I gave my reasons for the move as: "Tillya Tepe" seems to be becoming the standard way to write this name in English. See, for one example among others, the several authors using this form in: Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul, p. 228. National Geographic, Washington, D.C. ISBN 978-1-4262-0295-7.</ref>

    I would be very grateful if anyone out there can untangle this for me now? Many thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any move done by you to change the article name to Tillya Tepe, only that you created a redirect to Tillia tepe. Could you please elaborate on what you tried to do? SoWhy 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the page to Tillya Tepe and fixed the redirects. Since the target page was only a redirect with no edit history, the software would've actually let you move it yourself, but it's all fixed now. Black Kite 10:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Matt Lewis

    Resolved
     – Discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Matt Lewis is marked resolved. — Satori Son 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was repeatedly and unfairly criticised by Matt yesterday because I had done some re-formatting of a discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland (a reasonable summary with diffs can be found here). When I posted to his talk page to apologise for any inconvenience[29] I got this response.[30] I replied that I was unhappy with his response, saying "'Nobody smells of roses - and certainly not you' is dangerously close to a personal attack!"[31]. This morning he attacked me again over a carefully considered response to his proposals, which led to me to file an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. The upshot was that his edits were reverted and he was warned that he was in danger of being blocked. He responded to the warning by making more personal attacks on me.[32] In particular: "But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me", "but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged" and "The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like." Note I have had no input at all since filing the original request. If Matt Lewis responds to the threat of being blocked by making further unwarranted personal attacks, then he should be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that this is already being discussed at WP:WQA, it would be better to leave it there, lest you be accused of forum shopping Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Swamilive - Sockpuppeteer and harasser wrapped up and ready to go

    Resolved
     – Handled, blocked, and closed. SQLQuery me! 18:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive contains a full confession, if anyone wants to take a look and determine an appropriate outcome. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Convergence and Union

    This static IP [33] has a quite long record of adding "progressive" to the party definition, when it is received wisdom that this party is not so. The operator of the IP has been prompted by myself and other users (such as user:Cnoguera) to please bother to discuss or add sources for his/her claim, to no avail. Every once in a while s/he comes back with the "progressive" addition, deleting "conservative" without bothering to explain why.

    It's high time for this IP to be blocked from editting in this article. Thanks. Mountolive please, behave 15:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 3 months with account creation enabled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why keep AC enabled? The IP is definitely static, and having new accounts every day doing the same edit won't help. -- lucasbfr talk 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be reblocked with account creation disabled if it becomes a problem, but the activity on the ip was so low as to make account creation enabled a reasonable option. Otherwise, it is simple AGF courtesy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Democratic Convergence of Catalonia

    Thank you for your prompt action. I am not sure if you blocked it from any editting or only for that article. In the latter case, then please extend the block to Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (one of the two constituent parties of Convergence and Union) for I just realized (I dont have this one in my watchlist) that s/he is doing the same mischief over there, too. Mountolive please, behave 22:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive sock farm through multiple wiki-projects

    Recently User:Alden Jones, joined revert war [34] on the page that he never edited before, and came up with reveletion on his previous revert warring. Alden stated that he was asked off-wiki by some en-wiki user to make these reverts[35]. Leaving the question who this user asking for revert favours might be, I'd like to bring to the attention Alden's editing record.

    User:Alden Jones who also happens to be Juguu/Cetzer/Zun/Zunpl/Prasuk historyk/Prasuk/Tramman/Karu/Frank3 (that is not full list) on various wikiprojects was indef blocked at pl.wiki and according to ArbCom of pl.wiki involved in block evasion, hoaxing and abusive socking, confirmed by checkuser (socks Karu, Juguu, Cetzer, IP 80.54.94.196, 195.117.128.81) [36]. Alden's socking is extensively covered also at pl.wikibooks during his attempt at adminship there [37].

    His rich blocklog at pl.wiki [38] includes off-wiki harassment, disruption, block evasion, spamming.

    Pl.wiki was not the only one hit by Alden's socking. Disruptive socking is also recorded at en. wiki: IP 212.122.214.173 who is clearly Frank3 [39], who clearly is Alden Jones (also Pawel, also from Bydgoszcz - common self-identification by this user's accounts on different wikiprojects) vandalized this userpage [40].

    Same disruptive activities of this IP have been recorded at wikinews. But there this IP is connected to yet another Alden's persona "Prasuk historyk/Prasuk" [41]

    And then this circus. Alden vandalized other user's userpage as IP [42], and removed his vandalism logged in as Alden Jones [43]

    Personal attacks is another issue that must be addressed. After his failed adminship at Wikinews Alden went on this trolling rampage [44][45], later he apologized. This reminds me recent incident. These brutal personal attacks "troll get lost from article about polish"[46][47] were followed by apologies [48]

    Now again he makes remarks towards admin that blocked him, implying that to block him and trolling is the same thing "in this situation block would be trolling. " [49]

    This cycle of trolling and vandalism followed by apologies makes me think that we have a case of WP:NOTTHERAPY here, and there is no solution but complete project (not just en.wiki or pl.wiki) ban. ----- M0RD00R (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd be inclined to go along with this. His responses to any sort of corrections seem to be "mind your own business"; for example, I can't said why did I revert --- this my business, so please don't more ask about it me, because I won't answer on your questions about my reverts in response to my objecting to a blind revert on his part. He's admitted he's acting as a proxy for someone else: But I've reverted it for requests one of user EN-Wiki. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye. This sort of disruption isn't helpful at all, regardless of where he's doing it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've asked Alden to create content, instead of revert warring and personal attacks. Even through he seems to like me, he does not heed my requests, and only "helps" by occasionally popping up and reverting in some articles I am involved with. I can do without such "help". If he does more random reverts or civility attacks, I believe his record speaks for himself... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's strange about your request to Alden, Piotrus, is that he claimed another user asked him to revert on Boleslaw I's intervention in the Kievan succession crisis, 1018. True enough, he did turn up after a three weeks + absence in the middle of your edit war, and reverted to your version. No-one else was reverting to your version except you. So who was asking him, if not you? Your guardian angel?

    The day ends, and you resume next day busying about, doing your thing. Then at 2034 GMT Alden lets it out, [50], someone urged him, and soon after you're at his page warning him in public not to revert but to create content. I saw this going on, and, weak as I am, suspected there might be some truth in the course of events. I was wondering either how my perception could be mistaken or else how on earth you'd try to escape that, and when I saw your post I quite honestly cringed. It was exactly what I expected you to do, as you'd left him a similar message after he'd helped you in a previous edit war. So it appeared to be pure ostentatious orchestration. Now in your proposed arbcom hearing you've come up with a story about him being a devoted fan who worships you, and follows you about reverting to your version in hope of Kudos from a great man such as yourself, rather than at your instigation. But in spite of this it looks more like you've taken on a "pet dog" that's turned out to be too wild to control.

    Creativity aside, either this looks pretty bad for you, Piotrus, as the bad part of me was thinking, or I'm missing something really important here. It's the evidence as far as I see it that is bad here, not my faith. So please tell me, what am I missing? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing that looks bad is your bad faith. Alden once told me he considers me a "wiki hero", follows my edits and every now and he likes to "help" me by reverting to my version. He IMs me often (on average once per day... I am considering blocking him from my IM), I usually ignore him or tell him to do something constructive with his time... and apparently a few times he thought "being constructive" is stalking my edits and "helping" me by reverting to my version (and several times he reverted perfectly good edits and I had to revert him...). He has poor command of English, but likes to use it and sometimes even I cannot understand his explanations. I told him to stop reverting and to concentrate on creating content, so far with little effect (see my posts to him on his talk page). I am not going to defend him (block him and good riddance), but I resent your meatpuppetry accusations. I am again disappointed, Deacon, in your judgment that instead of trying to help me deal with this problematic user (you have never even asked me about him on my talk page), you are starting by accusing me of meatpuppetry here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Piotrus, that's what you said on the Arbcom. But the evidence, including his own testimony, suggests that you recruited Alden and got him to edit war for you, however you've agreed to present your relationship publicly. The evidence is against you, Piotrus, not just my faith. G'nite. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "evidence"? Care to share it with anybody? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd editor

    Seems to be trying to impersonate me, eg link and link. What do you do about people like this? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block them, which I am about to do. --Rodhullandemu 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely, has now blanked the User & Talk pages, but appears to be doing good edits. I'll keep an eye on this. --Rodhullandemu 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call this a good edit [51]. M0RD00R (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen that, but he is now blocked for WP:3RR anyway. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree with Nishkid64's assessment of the username violation. I've chimed in as well. — Satori Son 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    QuackGuru's talk page template

    QuackGuru has a deceptive box at the top of his talk page that is quite deceptive:

    He is definitely not "semi-retired" or "no longer very active"! He is extremely active.

    When asked to revise or remove it, he has removed my remarks instead of being collaborative and removing the deceptive box:

    This deception has to stop. We can't have deceptive editors here. It ruins any possibilities for AGF and collaboration. -- Fyslee / talk 20:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have notified QuackGuru of this discussion. — Satori Son 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    deceptive box is deceptive?--Crossmr (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What? Who cares if he has a box at the top of his talk page saying he is semi retired? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dumbest. Edit-war. Ever. HalfShadow 22:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe next time try dropping a friendly note instead of first telling an editor to behave [52] and then accusing him of being dishonest over a stupid box? [53] Way, way over the line. Shell babelfish 23:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mikayla12

    Not sure if this falls into the class of "inappropriate user page for a minor" or not. I tend to believe the self-identification, not the part where she is a singing sensation that is best buds with all the Disney stars.Kww (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted per WP:CHILD. Looking at her contribs, we could be dealing with some vandalism as well. Blueboy96 20:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikiarrangementeditor edit warring

    Resolved
     – blockage

    This user has a long history of edit warring but continues to do so and push a single agenda. As far as I can see from looking over the edits, this user's only goal here is to promote the Nissan GT-R either by extoling its virtues or by casting doubt on its competitors. I have a history with this user, however I am not involved in the current dispute and while Wikiarrangementeditor has not explicitly violated 3RR since the last 1 week block he/she has continued to edit war and has not made an atttempts at discussion. I feel an block is in order, but given my history I would like other admins to look over the situation and make a decision. Thanks. --Leivick (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    The IP listed above is continuing with the exact same edit warring. Obviously nothing is confirmed yet, but this is very likely Wikiarrangementeditor circumventing his block. How is this suppose to be taken care of? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP blocked + article semiprotected. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Many new redirects

    Recently, many new business redirects involving pages such as Kennametal, John Wiley & Sons, Jefferies & Company, Kinetic Concepts, ITT Technical Institute, etc, which can be found here. Some of these changes conform to MoS guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies)), but others, like "Graco Inc." to "Graco (fluid handling)" do not, as it says to use "Inc" for disambiguation purposes. Also, he drops "Corp" sometimes and adds "Corporation" other times.

    Could some of the worse redirects be deleted? (note, originally posted 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) and changed later to reflect the concern and later information. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I undertstand what you're getting at. Whiskeydog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made no page moves but has created a bunch of redirects from full company names to the actual article. If the MOS says that the article and redirect should be swapped then just do it. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then, created a bunch of redirects. Why? It is rather standard to link directly instead of creating redirects. It appears that they are all connected to S&P 400. I guess each page needs to be hunted down and linked to directly, instead of being redirected. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine to link through a redirect - in fact it's preferable to piping a link because there is less potential for issues with the backlinks. CIreland (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I renamed the topic accordingly. It doesn't seem to be as a big issue, but will need someone to clean up the links to be direct, at least in a few important cases. A few of the Wikilinks seem unnecessary as their original names are improper and will need to be deleted after the original link is fixed (Belo Corp. (New), Gallagher(Arthur J.), and Zebra Technologies'A' in particular). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The company name formatting sucks, but it's what S&P uses on its charts. See [54] Any change to the exact formatting misses the point (mentioned below). Whiskeydog (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [ec] Not really an ANI issue I don't think; I wish you'd have asked me directly first. The above editors have already explained Ottava Rima's misinterpretation—no page moves have taken place. I'll address the redirects. Yes, these redirects may appear to be rather "cruddy", but redirects are cheap, and there is a rationale. They are the business names used by S&P in its lists of stock market index constituents. The redirects allow articles like S&P 400 and S&P 600 to be updated, from scratch if necessary, with constituent data that can be wikilinked without having to be piped. (Any piping that was done to the articles' links would be lost if the tables were generated from scratch data. If the lists are kept up to date, it's a hypothetical issue, but they're generally not.) Whiskeydog (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, Whiskey. I only wanted the redirects of poor names to be deleted. It would be best having them not show up in searches if they are not used. I don't think you have the ability to do that, unless you are an admin and no one knows :). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - (because some people wondered), I mentioned Whiskeydog, but I did not contact him, as he isn't really needing to be involved per se , except as the source of changes (as it isn't a complaint against him). The only thing necessary is to delete a lot of bad links that were originally started from the S&P 400 page (redlinks turned to redirects, I assume). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with WhiskeyDog (and I created some of these redirects as well: see my contributions here): please do not delete any of them. Any "fixes" (including pipes) of the company names in the List of S&P 500 companies, S&P 400 and S&P 600 articles get overwritten when these 3 artcles are automatically updated for changes in their constituents. Redirects are cheap, and in fact, even though they appear strange, these are frequent search terms from outside WP because S&P is such a significant source of data on companies, and so having them is very useful to WP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?

    I'm sorry if I'm submitting this to the wrong place. I'm involved in a dispute with an editor who is making unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and incomprehensible edits to this article, possibly based on original research, and who for several years has been protecting this article from anyone trying to fix it, and attacking people who try with extremely intemperate language, accusing us of being ignorant, not knowing the subject, etc. etc.

    The article is Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? and if you look at the Talk page there you will see a great deal of material from him, going back to 2006. I came into the picture recently, originally just looking for information about the art work, and finding an incomprehensible mess instead.

    The core of the dispute is the authorship of this work of art, which has traditionally been attributed to Richard Hamilton. Recently the son of another artist, John McHale, argued on a website that his father should be credited with the picture. This claim has not to my knowledge been evaluated by any art professional or critic, and has not been discussed in any of the many books on the subject of Pop art, Hamilton, etc. As such, I feel that the attribution of the collage MUST be left as Hamilton until some outside authority has weighed in, besides a single person intimately associated with the issue. The user I am struggling with, Ottex, feels differently.

    Another area of contention is references. The user Ottex is repeatedly filling up the article with unsourced claims about the contents of the collage, including much irrelevant associational details. He CLAIMS to have provided a reference but instead of elucidating his point he merely continues to repeat the same bald assertions over and over with much contemptuous mocking of me and other editors, who are too ignorant to understand the brilliance of his claims. The fact that his editing and talk contributions are riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, making them very difficult to understand as English, and the fact that he has apparently invented a person out of a typographical error, puts his supposed expertise in some doubt.

    I'm a hot-tempered person by nature, and if I continue to engage with him on this subject, I'm going to blow my top. That's why I'm coming to you. As it stands, his version of the article is ruinous, and damages the understanding of any unsuspecting third party who merely seeks information. But I can't re-revert it to my own admittedly poor but backed-up and readable version because of 3RR.

    Please advise. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same editor pushed another editor, Freshacconci, off the article a few months back. He seems absolutely devoted to attributing the work to McHale, though the only real source is the one interview, which didn't seem to grab headlines elsewhere. a recent book about these guys, found via Google books, Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future, doesn't mention this controversy at all, despite devoting pages on pages to the pop art history and the groups McHale and Hamilton were in. he may need a serious warning, with blocks and topic ban to follow. ThuranX (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have in my hands four major books on Pop art. None mention the controversy. McHale's son didn't pop up until 2006, which means it may be some time before it IS addressed, if ever. However, if you read the McHale Jr. interview, his credibility is undermined by some complete misunderstandings; i.e., he thinks Guinness stout is called "Murphy" in Ireland (Murphy's is actually a competing brand of stout ale). I don't think McHale Jr. is a credible source. I definitely don't think he's an encyclopedic source.
    This is but one example of what dealing with this guy has been like. How can I revert an edit that's been re-reverted already, even though it has spelling errors in it? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mamalujo and Hitler's Pope

    For several weeks User:Mamalujo has been inserting the claim that John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, "recanted" the main thesis of his book. He has refused to provide a source for the claim that Cornwell "recanted" his thesis; indeed, he refuses to come to the Talk: page at all. Saying that an author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book is a very serious charge, and I've several times warned Mamalujo that this is a WP:BLP violation. Unless I get other advice here, I plan to block him next. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some diffs showing that the behavior is persistent and that the user was sufficiently warned would help. But assuming that the user was indeed warned and his behavior is persistent I think blocking is the only way Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, here are some diffs of him doing it: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]
    Here are diffs of warnings: [60] [61] [62] [63] Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two minutes after my last warning, he removed the warning from his Talk: page, under the guise of archiving it, and told me he would give my "hasty warning" "the consideration it deserves". He has yet to discuss this on the article Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice is to notify him of this thread, reiterate this is the final warning, and if he does it again block him. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He did in fact archive the whole contents of his talk page, but his behavior here is stretching the limit. I'm going to leave him a warning as an uninvolved admin that his behavior violated policy and further reverts without citing reliable sources to that specific effect will be blockable under BLP (what he's writing is also OR, as far as I can tell, lacking a RS to the contrary...). Assuming good faith, a clear explanation of my conclusions will go on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's true, he suddenly decided to archive his Talk: page, for the first time since January 11, 2008, 2 minutes after my warning. And you're right, he appears to have cherry picked a quotation from an interview with Cornwell, and is using that primary source to synthesize an argument. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your position is correct in the underlying content dispute regarding the Cornwell quote. But why haven't you notified Mamalujo of this AN/I thread? Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because within 2 minutes of my first posting to his page he deleted my post, so I thought it would seem needlessly confrontational. But I'll notify him now, and hope for the best. Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am strongly against blocking the editor. I understand the severity of a BLP vio, but I think what Mamalujo needs is a calm voice to explain BLP, and, especially, OR. I feel the editors actions have nothing to do with an attempt to cast a shadow upon the article's subject, but rather make assumptions based on their own opinions of the article. This is a distinct POV that results in original research, but they might not understand that. There is no reason to block an editor who is simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (for better or worse in this case), although I do understand Jayjig's position. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=234476077"